foreignpolicy--2020-03-27--Is the U.S. Also to Blame in the Oil Price War?

Is the U.S. Also to Blame in the Oil Price War ?
The Saudi-initiated oil price war has sparked a virulent reaction from some U.S. lawmakers , who accused Riyadh of waging “ economic warfare ” on the United States and threatened a host of potential reprisals , from economic sanctions to a halt to U.S. assistance for Saudi Arabia .
The problem is that the United States is probably as responsible as anyone for the plunge in oil prices .
No country has added more oil to the global glut in recent years than the United States—and despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers are still increasing output .
That gives Moscow and Riyadh zero reason to swallow a financial hit on their own by lowering their own production levels , which in the meantime just increases the pain for all .
Nonetheless a half-dozen leading Republican senators wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week , lamenting that America ’ s energy sector “ is now under direct threat from a country that professes to be our ally.
” The escalation in the oil battle between the United States and Saudi Arabia comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get Saudi Arabia to cut production and shore up plunging crude prices highlighted the difficulties of finding a supply-side fix to the damaging oil glut Riyadh helped create .
Since it decided to throw open the taps and drive oil prices sharply downward earlier this month , Saudi Arabia has resisted calls from Washington and elsewhere to rethink its strategy—much as Riyadh did during a similar period of oversupply and falling prices in the 1980s .
Russia , the other big producer alongside the United States and Saudi Arabia , has recently indicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production agreement—provided everybody , including the United States , shares the pain .
This week , Pompeo urged Saudi Arabia to abandon its all-out production push and make sacrifices to help balance the global oil market—and throw a lifeline to U.S. producers .
“ Saudi Arabia has a real opportunity to rise to the occasion and reassure global energy and financial markets when the world faces serious economic uncertainty , ” the State Department said in a readout of the phone call between Pompeo and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about wading into the oil war , cheering lower gasoline prices for consumers while noting the damage the price war has done to the Russian economy .
While Pompeo and other U.S. diplomats and lawmakers have pressed Saudi Arabia to make cuts , Trump has not thrown his weight behind the effort .
“ I ’ ll believe the White House is getting serious when they start engaging American companies and state regulators on the question of domestic cuts .
That would get Saudi Arabia ’ s attention , I think , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Foreign Reports , an energy consultancy .
State regulators in Texas have toyed with government control of the amount of oil being produced—a throwback to a state-managed oil market from 50 years ago—as a way to restrain output and put a floor under prices , even as individual producers have continued to boost production .
But there ’ s no consensus within the industry or among regulators about how to cut back U.S. oil output .
“ Texas is going to cut one way or the other , ” Reed said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it involuntarily—or do you want to do it in a coordinated , strategic way that might also open the door for a diplomatic solution with other countries ?
” Even if , as many forecasters expect , U.S. shale output falls by as much as 1 million barrels a day–the country currently pumps about 13 million barrels a day—that likely won ’ t happen until the second half of the year .
“ Shale has to capitulate , ” said David Goldwyn , the president of Goldwyn Global Strategies , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is absolutely no incentive for any other producer to cut back , because it just extends the life of U.S. shale all over again.
” If there is so much pressure to cut production , it ’ s because there is an even bigger problem in the oil patch than massive oversupply : The global coronavirus pandemic has absolutely destroyed global demand for oil as entire economies in Europe and the United States come to a virtual halt .
The International Energy Agency said Friday that oil demand could fall by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline—due to virus-related shutdowns , which would be by far the biggest oil-market shrinkage in history .
“ The demand collapse is snowballing so fast it ’ s difficult to imagine anything being done by producers at this point to prevent an epic inventory build and more price weakness , ” said Bob McNally , the president of Rapidan Energy Group , a consultancy .
“ It ’ s not a pretty picture.
” That combination of overproduction with dwindling demand has sent oil prices down about 66 percent since the beginning of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below $ 30 a barrel , many oil producers , from Canadian tar sands to African offshore drillers to the U.S. shale patch , can ’ t make money .
That means , according to oil industry consultants Wood Mackenzie , that an unprecedented wave of oil-well shutdowns are looming .
If benchmark global crude prices stabilize around $ 35 a barrel , about 4 million barrels a day of global production would be uneconomic and in danger of being shut down ; if prices fall to $ 25 a barrel , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market , Wood Mackenzie said—and some of it may never come back online , even if global oil demand recovers .
Some smaller producers will go out of business .
Other big , mature oil fields that have to shut production during such a slump might not ever be able to come back online , whether because of the costs of restarting production or because of damaged oil reservoirs while they lay idle .
“ Given the difficulties and costs associated with restarting mature production , a proportion of this supply may never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice president of upstream at Wood Mackenzie , in a release .
That ’ s because many producers won ’ t survive .
Brent crude fell about 6 percent on Friday to just under $ 25 a barrel , and while there are parts of the U.S. shale industry that can make money even with dirt-cheap oil , most can ’ t—they need prices closer to $ 45 a barrel to stay in the black .
The recent plunge in prices has sent U.S. shale producers scurrying to slash investment plans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mountain of low-quality debt ; the biggest U.S. producer just got downgraded from investment grade to junk status this week .
There are a few potential policies that Washington could reach for to limit the short-term pain .
The Trump administration toyed with buying excess U.S. oil to put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve , but it didn ’ t get funding from Congress .
Oil companies could be eligible for some loan guarantees and financial assistance in the huge , $ 2 trillion rescue package the House is expected to pass today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for U.S. oil producers—a deliberate part of the Saudi and Russian strategy to claw back market share from a rival that has steadily increased output at their expense—is what is prompting so much ire against the Saudis in Congress , if not the White House .
“ This relationship will be difficult to preserve if turmoil and hardship continue to be intentionally inflicted on the small- and medium-sized American companies that are at the heart of our nation ’ s energy abundance , ” the lawmakers wrote .
“ By taking advantage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kingdom risks its bilateral relationship with the United States.
” Of course , Congress has in recent years taken a much tougher line on Saudi Arabia than the White House has , with bipartisan legislation over the Saudi role in the war in Yemen , the 9/11 terrorist attacks , and potentially unfair economic competition through its leadership in OPEC , the oil exporters ’ cartel .
What ’ s jarring is that in years past , Congress sought to punish Saudi Arabia for making production decisions that raised the price of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , Congress yet again introduced legislation—known as “ NOPEC ” —that would allow U.S. antitrust action against Saudi Arabia and other big oil producers .
Now , it ’ s attacking Saudi Arabia for doing the exact opposite—for not colluding with other big producers to manage the global flow of oil .
“ It is sweetly ironic : The same people who are pushing the NOPEC legislation are also saying , ‘ We are going to punish you unless you act like a cartel and start cutting production , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department energy envoy .
If the recent collapse in oil prices—and U.S. inability to convince an allied country that is utterly beholden to it for military protection to change course—demonstrate anything , it ’ s that the notion of American “ energy dominance ” was always a myth .
The United States can pump record amounts of oil , but only if other big oil producers allow it to .
“ In the oil market , power lies with those that have spare production capacity , or set the marginal price of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither of these , ” Goldwyn said .
“ We are not dominating , we are begging—for production cuts .
”

The Saudi-initiated oil price war has sparked a virulent reaction from some U.S. lawmakers, who accused Riyadh of waging “economic warfare” on the United States and threatened a host of potential reprisals, from economic sanctions to a halt to U.S. assistance for Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi-initiated oil price war has sparked a virulent reaction from some U.S. lawmakers, who accused Riyadh of waging “economic warfare” on the United States and threatened a host of potential reprisals, from economic sanctions to a halt to U.S. assistance for Saudi Arabia.
The problem is that the United States is probably as responsible as anyone for the plunge in oil prices. No country has added more oil to the global glut in recent years than the United States—and despite the recent plunge in crude prices, U.S. producers are still increasing output. That gives Moscow and Riyadh zero reason to swallow a financial hit on their own by lowering their own production levels, which in the meantime just increases the pain for all.
Nonetheless a half-dozen leading Republican senators wrote to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo this week, lamenting that America’s energy sector “is now under direct threat from a country that professes to be our ally.”
The escalation in the oil battle between the United States and Saudi Arabia comes as Pompeo’s failed entreaty to get Saudi Arabia to cut production and shore up plunging crude prices highlighted the difficulties of finding a supply-side fix to the damaging oil glut Riyadh helped create.
Since it decided to throw open the taps and drive oil prices sharply downward earlier this month, Saudi Arabia has resisted calls from Washington and elsewhere to rethink its strategy—much as Riyadh did during a similar period of oversupply and falling prices in the 1980s. Russia, the other big producer alongside the United States and Saudi Arabia, has recently indicated a willingness to resuscitate some sort of production agreement—provided everybody, including the United States, shares the pain.
This week, Pompeo urged Saudi Arabia to abandon its all-out production push and make sacrifices to help balance the global oil market—and throw a lifeline to U.S. producers. “Saudi Arabia has a real opportunity to rise to the occasion and reassure global energy and financial markets when the world faces serious economic uncertainty,” the State Department said in a readout of the phone call between Pompeo and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
But U.S. President Donald Trump has been ambivalent about wading into the oil war, cheering lower gasoline prices for consumers while noting the damage the price war has done to the Russian economy. While Pompeo and other U.S. diplomats and lawmakers have pressed Saudi Arabia to make cuts, Trump has not thrown his weight behind the effort.
“I’ll believe the White House is getting serious when they start engaging American companies and state regulators on the question of domestic cuts. That would get Saudi Arabia’s attention, I think,” said Matthew Reed, the vice president at Foreign Reports, an energy consultancy.
State regulators in Texas have toyed with government control of the amount of oil being produced—a throwback to a state-managed oil market from 50 years ago—as a way to restrain output and put a floor under prices, even as individual producers have continued to boost production. But there’s no consensus within the industry or among regulators about how to cut back U.S. oil output.
“Texas is going to cut one way or the other,” Reed said. “The question is do you want to do it involuntarily—or do you want to do it in a coordinated, strategic way that might also open the door for a diplomatic solution with other countries?”
Even if, as many forecasters expect, U.S. shale output falls by as much as 1 million barrels a day–the country currently pumps about 13 million barrels a day—that likely won’t happen until the second half of the year.
“Shale has to capitulate,” said David Goldwyn, the president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, an energy consultancy. “Until that happens, there is absolutely no incentive for any other producer to cut back, because it just extends the life of U.S. shale all over again.”
If there is so much pressure to cut production, it’s because there is an even bigger problem in the oil patch than massive oversupply: The global coronavirus pandemic has absolutely destroyed global demand for oil as entire economies in Europe and the United States come to a virtual halt. The International Energy Agency said Friday that oil demand could fall by 20 million barrels a day—a 20 percent decline—due to virus-related shutdowns, which would be by far the biggest oil-market shrinkage in history.
“The demand collapse is snowballing so fast it’s difficult to imagine anything being done by producers at this point to prevent an epic inventory build and more price weakness,” said Bob McNally, the president of Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy. “It’s not a pretty picture.”
That combination of overproduction with dwindling demand has sent oil prices down about 66 percent since the beginning of the year, and with prices well below $30 a barrel, many oil producers, from Canadian tar sands to African offshore drillers to the U.S. shale patch, can’t make money. That means, according to oil industry consultants Wood Mackenzie, that an unprecedented wave of oil-well shutdowns are looming.
If benchmark global crude prices stabilize around $35 a barrel, about 4 million barrels a day of global production would be uneconomic and in danger of being shut down; if prices fall to $25 a barrel, some 10 million barrels could disappear from the market, Wood Mackenzie said—and some of it may never come back online, even if global oil demand recovers.
Some smaller producers will go out of business. Other big, mature oil fields that have to shut production during such a slump might not ever be able to come back online, whether because of the costs of restarting production or because of damaged oil reservoirs while they lay idle.
“Given the difficulties and costs associated with restarting mature production, a proportion of this supply may never return,” said Fraser McKay, the vice president of upstream at Wood Mackenzie, in a release.
That’s because many producers won’t survive. Brent crude fell about 6 percent on Friday to just under $25 a barrel, and while there are parts of the U.S. shale industry that can make money even with dirt-cheap oil, most can’t—they need prices closer to $45 a barrel to stay in the black. The recent plunge in prices has sent U.S. shale producers scurrying to slash investment plans, with many also trying to restructure their mountain of low-quality debt; the biggest U.S. producer just got downgraded from investment grade to junk status this week.
There are a few potential policies that Washington could reach for to limit the short-term pain. The Trump administration toyed with buying excess U.S. oil to put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but it didn’t get funding from Congress. Oil companies could be eligible for some loan guarantees and financial assistance in the huge, $2 trillion rescue package the House is expected to pass today.
In the meantime, that pain for U.S. oil producers—a deliberate part of the Saudi and Russian strategy to claw back market share from a rival that has steadily increased output at their expense—is what is prompting so much ire against the Saudis in Congress, if not the White House.
“This relationship will be difficult to preserve if turmoil and hardship continue to be intentionally inflicted on the small- and medium-sized American companies that are at the heart of our nation’s energy abundance,” the lawmakers wrote. “By taking advantage of a confusing situation and desperate time, the Kingdom risks its bilateral relationship with the United States.”
Of course, Congress has in recent years taken a much tougher line on Saudi Arabia than the White House has, with bipartisan legislation over the Saudi role in the war in Yemen, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and potentially unfair economic competition through its leadership in OPEC, the oil exporters’ cartel.
What’s jarring is that in years past, Congress sought to punish Saudi Arabia for making production decisions that raised the price of oil, which hurt the U.S. economy. In 2018, Congress yet again introduced legislation—known as “NOPEC”—that would allow U.S. antitrust action against Saudi Arabia and other big oil producers. Now, it’s attacking Saudi Arabia for doing the exact opposite—for not colluding with other big producers to manage the global flow of oil.
“It is sweetly ironic: The same people who are pushing the NOPEC legislation are also saying, ‘We are going to punish you unless you act like a cartel and start cutting production,’” said Goldwyn, a former U.S. State Department energy envoy.
If the recent collapse in oil prices—and U.S. inability to convince an allied country that is utterly beholden to it for military protection to change course—demonstrate anything, it’s that the notion of American “energy dominance” was always a myth. The United States can pump record amounts of oil, but only if other big oil producers allow it to.
“In the oil market, power lies with those that have spare production capacity, or set the marginal price of oil, and the United States has neither of these,” Goldwyn said. “We are not dominating, we are begging—for production cuts.”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-27--Sorry, but the Virus Shows Why There Won’t Be Global Action on Climate Change

Sorry , but the Virus Shows Why There Won ’ t Be Global Action on Climate Change The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted daily life , caused widespread sickness and fatalities , and sent the global economy careening toward a depression .
Governments have responded by taking unprecedented steps to shut down entire cities , ban travel , and isolate nations—extreme measures that are giving hope to climate activists that similarly ambitious policies might be possible to address global warming , which many consider a similar existential threat .
Yet that would be the wrong lesson to draw , as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response continue to keep climate change action out of reach .
Scientists warn that the impacts of COVID-19 will rise sharply over time , threatening the lives of vast numbers of people , particularly those most vulnerable .
They warn that climate change , too , will severely harm many over time , albeit not with the same rapidity .
If governments and companies can take extreme actions to cancel sports seasons , shut down workplaces , and restrict movement , surely they can take similarly drastic steps to change how we produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 reveals three reasons why fighting climate change is so hard .
First , stopping the spread of this highly contagious disease requires that we all upend our daily lives in dramatic ways—and often do so for the benefit of others .
Saving lives and sparing our medical system from becoming overwhelmed requires slowing the pace of the disease ’ s spread .
Doing that , in turn , requires a range of public health measures including avoiding contact with others , especially since those carrying the virus may not even know they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people should be able to recover from COVID-19 , but “ social distancing ” is necessary to help others avoid contracting the disease , particularly the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions .
If governments can take extreme actions to shut down workplaces and restrict movement , surely they can take similarly drastic steps to change how we produce and consume energy ?
In other words , “ flattening the curve ” of the pandemic is a classic collective action problem .
Some people will choose to self-isolate to be responsible and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t do the same , there will be little benefit from that sacrifice to slow the disease ’ s spread .
On the other hand , if everyone else self-isolates , a low-risk individual might choose to “ free ride ” on those sacrifices by continuing to live life as normal .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Indeed , this behavior has been pervasive during the pandemic , undermining efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health warnings , bars and restaurants remained full in major cities like New York , beaches in Florida remained crowded , and revelers in many other places around the world continued to ignore official orders to avoid congregating .
“ If I get corona , I get corona , ” as one spring break student in Miami nonchalantly put it .
Like COVID-19 , climate change is the ultimate collective action problem .
Each ton of greenhouse gas contributes equally to the problem , no matter where in the world it is produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of emissions each year ; Europe , a meager 9 percent .
Lawmakers in Brussels may choose to impose an economic cost on Europeans by ratcheting up the pace of decarbonization , but there will be little benefit in avoided climate impacts unless others around the world do the same .
The global nature of climate change should rally nations to do even more to address it because they want others to follow .
When the Obama administration was developing an estimate for the harm to society from carbon emissions , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than domestic estimate of damage precisely for this reason .
Because carbon dioxide impacts are global , and every ton of CO2 contributes equally to climate change , if all nations looked only at the impact of a ton of CO2 on their own nations , the collective response would be vastly inadequate to address the true damage from climate change .
Unfortunately , too often the need for collective action is an excuse for inaction .
House Republicans often argue that if China won ’ t commit to major emissions reductions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander recently put it , “ When it comes to climate change , China , India , and developing countries are the problem.
” To slow the spread of COVID-19 , governments are clamping down to force collective action when individuals fail to follow guidelines .
Cities across the world are shutting down businesses and events , at great cost .
Yet the effectiveness of any one government ’ s action is limited if there are weak links in the global effort to curb the pandemic—such as from states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world is in agreement that eradicating a pandemic is in every country ’ s best interest .
Climate change is even harder to solve because it results from the sum of all greenhouse gas emissions and thus requires aggregate effort , a problem particularly vulnerable to free-riding , as my Columbia University colleague Scott Barrett explains in his excellent book Why Cooperate ?
The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods .
And whereas governments can force people to stay home , there is no global institution with the enforcement power to require that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young and healthy are unpersuaded by appeals to the greater good , they should still avoid crowded beaches and bars because of the high degree of uncertainty about COVID-19 , which may impact young people more than previously thought .
Practicing social distancing not only helps others but is a risk mitigation strategy for oneself .
Similarly , taking climate change action , even by countries less at risk than others , is a risk mitigation strategy because of the high degree of uncertainty over how severe the impacts of climate change will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
The second sobering lesson from COVID-19 for climate change efforts is the importance of public buy-in and education .
The problems of collective action described above are less acute when the public broadly understands the gravity of the threat .
After suffering from failed responses to previous disease outbreaks , several Asian countries learned their lessons and have responded to COVID-19 far more rapidly than the United States and those in Europe .
Residents of Hong Kong , for example , which suffered during the SARS epidemic , canceled gatherings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordered it because they understood the risks .
While public concern with climate change is rising , there remains a long way to go .
Only half of Americans believe climate change should be a top priority for the federal government , and the figure is far lower on the Republican side of the aisle .
Indeed , COVID-19 itself may actually erode public support for stronger climate action , as the pace of climate ambition wanes during times of economic hardship.COVID-19 may actually erode public support for stronger climate action , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times of economic hardship .
Historically , there is an inverse relationship in the United States and Europe between public concern about the environment and worries about economic conditions .
Similarly , concern about economic growth has often caused China to ratchet back its environmental ambitions .
Just last week , China was reportedly considering relaxing emissions standards to help struggling automakers .
The third reason COVID-19 should give pause to expectations about climate change action is because of what it reveals about the strong link between carbon emissions and economic activity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thus carbon intensity , of economic growth has declined , as economies become more energy-efficient .
Each unit of economic growth contributes less to carbon emissions than it previously did .
From 2014 to 2016 , global greenhouse gas emissions did not rise at all , leading many to celebrate that emissions and economic growth had decoupled .
Yet there remained a strong relationship between growth and energy use .
As Harvard ’ s Robert Stavins pointed out , the rate of gross domestic product growth still very much affects emissions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fall .
As COVID-19 brings the global economy to a standstill , economists worry about not just a recession , but even a global depression .
In the United States alone , a record 3.3 million workers filed for unemployment benefits last week , a number likely to rise sharply .
On the stock market , the Dow Jones index wiped out all the gains of Donald Trump ’ s presidency before rebounding on reports the U.S. Congress would pass a stimulus bill .
As air travel and other transport is ratcheted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by around 20 percent , and analysts estimate it will be down by at least 5 percent in all of 2020 compared to last year .
A huge hit to economic growth would likely mean carbon emissions will fall in 2020 for the first time since the Great Recession of 2008 .
That may seem like good news , but it is not .
First of all , economic contractions are not a desirable or sustainable way to curb emissions ; emissions rebounded sharply after 2009 .
More importantly , the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Great Recession or COVID-19 to bring emissions down serves as a reminder of just how strongly tied emissions remain to economic growth—and thus how hard it is to lower them .
That is why energy from renewable sources can grow as rapidly as it has over the past decade and yet fossil fuel use can keep rising at the same time as total energy use rises around the world , especially in fast-growing economies like China and India .
As one example , Marianne Kah , an economist at the Center on Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections of oil demand growth to understand why analysts differ on when oil demand will peak and found that assumptions about economic growth are as important as assumptions about the penetration of electric vehicles .
Policymakers have spent trillions of dollars and passed countless regulations , standards , and mandates to spur clean energy .
That it takes a pandemic-induced economic standstill to actually bring emissions down should be a sobering reminder of just how hard addressing climate change will beThat it takes a pandemic-induced economic standstill to actually bring down emissions should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard addressing climate change will be .
as living standards , fortunately , continue to rise in emerging markets .
COVID-19 may deliver some short-term climate benefits by curbing energy use , or even longer-term benefits if economic stimulus is linked to climate goals—or if people get used to telecommuting and thus use less oil in the future .
Yet any climate benefits from the COVID-19 crisis are likely to be fleeting and negligible .
Rather , the pandemic is a reminder of just how wicked a problem climate change is because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy-in , and decarbonizing the energy mix while supporting economic growth and energy use around the world .

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted daily life, caused widespread sickness and fatalities, and sent the global economy careening toward a depression. Governments have responded by taking unprecedented steps to shut down entire cities, ban travel, and isolate nations—extreme measures that are giving hope to climate activists that similarly ambitious policies might be possible to address global warming, which many consider a similar existential threat. Yet that would be the wrong lesson to draw, as the very same barriers preventing an effective COVID-19 response continue to keep climate change action out of reach.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted daily life, caused widespread sickness and fatalities, and sent the global economy careening toward a depression. Governments have responded by taking unprecedented steps to shut down entire cities, ban travel, and isolate nations—extreme measures that are giving hope to climate activists that similarly ambitious policies might be possible to address global warming, which many consider a similar existential threat. Yet that would be the wrong lesson to draw, as the very same barriers preventing an effective COVID-19 response continue to keep climate change action out of reach.
Scientists warn that the impacts of COVID-19 will rise sharply over time, threatening the lives of vast numbers of people, particularly those most vulnerable. They warn that climate change, too, will severely harm many over time, albeit not with the same rapidity. If governments and companies can take extreme actions to cancel sports seasons, shut down workplaces, and restrict movement, surely they can take similarly drastic steps to change how we produce and consume energy?
In reality, COVID-19 reveals three reasons why fighting climate change is so hard.
First, stopping the spread of this highly contagious disease requires that we all upend our daily lives in dramatic ways—and often do so for the benefit of others. Saving lives and sparing our medical system from becoming overwhelmed requires slowing the pace of the disease’s spread. Doing that, in turn, requires a range of public health measures including avoiding contact with others, especially since those carrying the virus may not even know they have it. Many young and healthy people should be able to recover from COVID-19, but “social distancing” is necessary to help others avoid contracting the disease, particularly the elderly or those with underlying medical conditions.
If governments can take extreme actions to shut down workplaces and restrict movement, surely they can take similarly drastic steps to change how we produce and consume energy?
In other words, “flattening the curve” of the pandemic is a classic collective action problem. Some people will choose to self-isolate to be responsible and help others, but if most others don’t do the same, there will be little benefit from that sacrifice to slow the disease’s spread. On the other hand, if everyone else self-isolates, a low-risk individual might choose to “free ride” on those sacrifices by continuing to live life as normal.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Indeed, this behavior has been pervasive during the pandemic, undermining efforts to slow the spread. Despite the public health warnings, bars and restaurants remained full in major cities like New York, beaches in Florida remained crowded, and revelers in many other places around the world continued to ignore official orders to avoid congregating. “If I get corona, I get corona,” as one spring break student in Miami nonchalantly put it.
Like COVID-19, climate change is the ultimate collective action problem. Each ton of greenhouse gas contributes equally to the problem, no matter where in the world it is produced. The United States contributes 15 percent of emissions each year; Europe, a meager 9 percent. Lawmakers in Brussels may choose to impose an economic cost on Europeans by ratcheting up the pace of decarbonization, but there will be little benefit in avoided climate impacts unless others around the world do the same.
The global nature of climate change should rally nations to do even more to address it because they want others to follow. When the Obama administration was developing an estimate for the harm to society from carbon emissions, for example, it chose to use the global rather than domestic estimate of damage precisely for this reason. Because carbon dioxide impacts are global, and every ton of CO2 contributes equally to climate change, if all nations looked only at the impact of a ton of CO2 on their own nations, the collective response would be vastly inadequate to address the true damage from climate change.
Unfortunately, too often the need for collective action is an excuse for inaction. House Republicans often argue that if China won’t commit to major emissions reductions, neither should the United States. As U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander recently put it, “When it comes to climate change, China, India, and developing countries are the problem.”
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
To slow the spread of COVID-19, governments are clamping down to force collective action when individuals fail to follow guidelines. Cities across the world are shutting down businesses and events, at great cost. Yet the effectiveness of any one government’s action is limited if there are weak links in the global effort to curb the pandemic—such as from states with conflict or poor governance—even if the world is in agreement that eradicating a pandemic is in every country’s best interest. Climate change is even harder to solve because it results from the sum of all greenhouse gas emissions and thus requires aggregate effort, a problem particularly vulnerable to free-riding, as my Columbia University colleague Scott Barrett explains in his excellent book Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods. And whereas governments can force people to stay home, there is no global institution with the enforcement power to require that nations curb emissions.
Even if the young and healthy are unpersuaded by appeals to the greater good, they should still avoid crowded beaches and bars because of the high degree of uncertainty about COVID-19, which may impact young people more than previously thought. Practicing social distancing not only helps others but is a risk mitigation strategy for oneself. Similarly, taking climate change action, even by countries less at risk than others, is a risk mitigation strategy because of the high degree of uncertainty over how severe the impacts of climate change will end up being—the so-called “of climate risk.
The second sobering lesson from COVID-19 for climate change efforts is the importance of public buy-in and education. The problems of collective action described above are less acute when the public broadly understands the gravity of the threat.
After suffering from failed responses to previous disease outbreaks, several Asian countries learned their lessons and have responded to COVID-19 far more rapidly than the United States and those in Europe. Residents of Hong Kong, for example, which suffered during the SARS epidemic, canceled gatherings and practiced social distancing before the government even ordered it because they understood the risks.
While public concern with climate change is rising, there remains a long way to go. Only half of Americans believe climate change should be a top priority for the federal government, and the figure is far lower on the Republican side of the aisle.
Indeed, COVID-19 itself may actually erode public support for stronger climate action, as the pace of climate ambition wanes during times of economic hardship.COVID-19 may actually erode public support for stronger climate action, as the pace of climate ambition wanes during times of economic hardship. Historically, there is an inverse relationship in the United States and Europe between public concern about the environment and worries about economic conditions. Similarly, concern about economic growth has often caused China to ratchet back its environmental ambitions. Just last week, China was reportedly considering relaxing emissions standards to help struggling automakers.
The third reason COVID-19 should give pause to expectations about climate change action is because of what it reveals about the strong link between carbon emissions and economic activity.
For decades, the energy intensity, and thus carbon intensity, of economic growth has declined, as economies become more energy-efficient. Each unit of economic growth contributes less to carbon emissions than it previously did. From 2014 to 2016, global greenhouse gas emissions did not rise at all, leading many to celebrate that emissions and economic growth had decoupled. Yet there remained a strong relationship between growth and energy use. As Harvard’s Robert Stavins pointed out, the rate of gross domestic product growth still very much affects emissions, as slower growth would have led emissions to fall.
As COVID-19 brings the global economy to a standstill, economists worry about not just a recession, but even a global depression. In the United States alone, a record 3.3 million workers filed for unemployment benefits last week, a number likely to rise sharply. On the stock market, the Dow Jones index wiped out all the gains of Donald Trump’s presidency before rebounding on reports the U.S. Congress would pass a stimulus bill. As air travel and other transport is ratcheted back globally, oil demand has fallen by around 20 percent, and analysts estimate it will be down by at least 5 percent in all of 2020 compared to last year. A huge hit to economic growth would likely mean carbon emissions will fall in 2020 for the first time since the Great Recession of 2008.
That may seem like good news, but it is not. First of all, economic contractions are not a desirable or sustainable way to curb emissions; emissions rebounded sharply after 2009. More importantly, the fact that it takes severe economic slowdowns like the Great Recession or COVID-19 to bring emissions down serves as a reminder of just how strongly tied emissions remain to economic growth—and thus how hard it is to lower them.
That is why energy from renewable sources can grow as rapidly as it has over the past decade and yet fossil fuel use can keep rising at the same time as total energy use rises around the world, especially in fast-growing economies like China and India. As one example, Marianne Kah, an economist at the Center on Global Energy Policy, deconstructed a range of projections of oil demand growth to understand why analysts differ on when oil demand will peak and found that assumptions about economic growth are as important as assumptions about the penetration of electric vehicles.
Policymakers have spent trillions of dollars and passed countless regulations, standards, and mandates to spur clean energy. That it takes a pandemic-induced economic standstill to actually bring emissions down should be a sobering reminder of just how hard addressing climate change will beThat it takes a pandemic-induced economic standstill to actually bring down emissions should be a sobering reminder of just how hard addressing climate change will be. as living standards, fortunately, continue to rise in emerging markets.
COVID-19 may deliver some short-term climate benefits by curbing energy use, or even longer-term benefits if economic stimulus is linked to climate goals—or if people get used to telecommuting and thus use less oil in the future.
Yet any climate benefits from the COVID-19 crisis are likely to be fleeting and negligible. Rather, the pandemic is a reminder of just how wicked a problem climate change is because it requires collective action, public understanding and buy-in, and decarbonizing the energy mix while supporting economic growth and energy use around the world.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-27--Democrats Push Back on Sanctions, Citing Coronavirus Fears

Top Democrats in Congress are urging the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Iran , Venezuela , and other countries badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic , citing the need to provide medical supplies and humanitarian support .
In a stream of several letters aimed at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top U.S. officials , Democratic members of Congress including presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are pushing for the administration to grant clearly outlined waivers from American sanctions .
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy also spearheaded a call by several Democrats to the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Iran and Venezuela , hit hard by coronavirus , saying the measures are hampering the free flow of medicines and other humanitarian supplies to the neediest as the pandemic worsens .
“ Helping these nations save lives during this crisis is the right thing to do from a moral perspective , but it is also the right thing to do from a national security perspective , ” Murphy wrote in the letter sent Thursday to Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin .
“ By allowing our sanctions to contribute to the exceptional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus outbreaks in both nations , we play into the anti-Americanism that is at the heart of both regimes ’ hold on power.
” The letter was co-signed by several Senate Democrats , including Chris Van Hollen , Tim Kaine , and Patrick Leahy .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
An early draft of the letter sent by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez that was seen by Foreign Policy also calls for a temporary suspension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and oil sectors that have been heavily targeted since President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 .
The letter is expected to be sent to Pompeo and Mnuchin early next week .
The Trump administration has said that it would only lift sanctions—which are aimed at pressuring Iran into a fresh nuclear deal without sunset provisions—once Iran stops its activity of supporting terrorist groups and proxies in the Middle East and halts its ballistic missile program .
In February , the United States asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for coronavirus relief through Swiss interlocutors .
State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus told the U.S.-funded Radio Farda on Thursday that the offer came without preconditions .
Murphy is asking the administration to hold off on the enforcement of sanctions for 90 days that could halt “ a rapid humanitarian response ” to the spread of the coronavirus in Iran .
He also wants the Treasury Department to ease penalties against information technology companies that could provide information on treating or preventing the disease .
Over 30,000 cases of the novel coronavirus have spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and clerical leaders .
Earlier this month , Iranian state radio said that Mohammad Mirmohammadi , a member of the advisory body to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei , had died of COVID-19 .
Amid the crisis , Iran has asked the International Monetary Fund for $ 5 billion in critical funds and for supplies of masks , respirators , and other medical equipment .
The debate over whether to modify U.S. sanctions on Iran spilled out onto the editorial pages of major American papers this week , with the New York Times editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow an IMF loan to move forward and for technical assistance .
The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board ran a rejoinder on Wednesday .
Some experts say even with sanctions relief or waivers for humanitarian and medical supplies , it ’ s unclear if countries like Iran have enough foreign currency reserves to buy up medical supplies—or if foreign companies and international banks would be willing to broker the transactions in the first place .
“ Even if they say they ’ re not targeting Iran ’ s humanitarian imports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall , ” Brian O ’ Toole , a former CIA and Treasury Department official , told Foreign Policy .
Administration officials also believe Iran ’ s military and its proxies could immediately take advantage of any broader sanctions relief , even if sanctions were only eased temporarily .
“ If Iran could suddenly repatriate a bunch of money , or Iran ’ s [ Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ] funds were unfrozen , it could start to move those into places where it ’ s hidden , people couldn ’ t find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re stuck back in a place … where you ’ ve aided U.S. adversaries , ” O ’ Toole said .
The call for the suspension of sanctions coincides with a Democratic effort led by Rep. Eliot Engel , the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , and Rep. Adam Smith , head of the armed services panel , to keep the U.S. Agency for International Development from halting aid to areas controlled by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen , a suspension that ’ s set to go into effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stonewalling efforts to push this suspension back , or to create meaningful carve outs for lifesaving programs , ” a former U.S. official familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy .
USAID ’ s assistant administrator for its Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean , John Barsa , who is set to take over the agency ’ s top spot in an acting role next month , strongly supports the suspension of U.S. assistance to Houthi-controlled areas , the former official said , though the Trump administration has been warned that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living under the Iran-backed group .
But it ’ s not clear the legislative effort to urge a course change will have an impact on the Trump administration ’ s efforts to exact what it calls “ maximum pressure ” on Iran to force it to rein in proxy groups and efforts at ballistic missile and nuclear programs .
Last month , the Trump administration and Switzerland , which has served as the U.S. consular go-between in Iran since Washington severed relations with the Islamic Republic more than 40 years ago , launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid American sanctions to provide needed agricultural goods and medical supplies .
But in spite of the gesture , U.S. sanctions on Iran appear to have continued apace as the Pentagon has engaged Iran in a low-level tit-for-tat following rocket attacks on Iraqi bases that killed two American service members .
Earlier Thursday , the Trump administration sanctioned 20 people and businesses linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ’ s elite Quds Force .
The State Department said they exploit “ Iraq ’ s dependence on Iranian electricity imports , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas waiver from U.S. sanctions to Iraq .
Speaking to the Senate ’ s powerful armed services panel in mid-March , the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East said the spread of the novel coronavirus to Iranian military and political leadership had caused Iran ’ s decision-making to become more unpredictable .
“ I think it probably makes them in terms of decision-making more dangerous rather than less dangerous , ” U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said .
Foreign Policy ’ s Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer contributed to @ @ @

Top Democrats in Congress are urging the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and other countries badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic, citing the need to provide medical supplies and humanitarian support.
Top Democrats in Congress are urging the Trump administration to ease sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and other countries badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic, citing the need to provide medical supplies and humanitarian support.
In a stream of several letters aimed at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top U.S. officials, Democratic members of Congress including presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are pushing for the administration to grant clearly outlined waivers from American sanctions.
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy also spearheaded a call by several Democrats to the Trump administration to ease U.S. sanctions against countries, including Iran and Venezuela, hit hard by coronavirus, saying the measures are hampering the free flow of medicines and other humanitarian supplies to the neediest as the pandemic worsens.
“Helping these nations save lives during this crisis is the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it is also the right thing to do from a national security perspective,” Murphy wrote in the letter sent Thursday to Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. “By allowing our sanctions to contribute to the exceptional pain and suffering brought about by the coronavirus outbreaks in both nations, we play into the anti-Americanism that is at the heart of both regimes’ hold on power.” The letter was co-signed by several Senate Democrats, including Chris Van Hollen, Tim Kaine, and Patrick Leahy.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
An early draft of the letter sent by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez that was seen by Foreign Policy also calls for a temporary suspension of sanctions, including on the banking and oil sectors that have been heavily targeted since President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. The letter is expected to be sent to Pompeo and Mnuchin early next week.
The Trump administration has said that it would only lift sanctions—which are aimed at pressuring Iran into a fresh nuclear deal without sunset provisions—once Iran stops its activity of supporting terrorist groups and proxies in the Middle East and halts its ballistic missile program. In February, the United States asked Iran to identify medical or other needs for coronavirus relief through Swiss interlocutors. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus told the U.S.-funded Radio Farda on Thursday that the offer came without preconditions.
Murphy is asking the administration to hold off on the enforcement of sanctions for 90 days that could halt “a rapid humanitarian response” to the spread of the coronavirus in Iran. He also wants the Treasury Department to ease penalties against information technology companies that could provide information on treating or preventing the disease.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Over 30,000 cases of the novel coronavirus have spread across Iran, including to elite military and clerical leaders. Earlier this month, Iranian state radio said that Mohammad Mirmohammadi, a member of the advisory body to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had died of COVID-19. Amid the crisis, Iran has asked the International Monetary Fund for $5 billion in critical funds and for supplies of masks, respirators, and other medical equipment.
The debate over whether to modify U.S. sanctions on Iran spilled out onto the editorial pages of major American papers this week, with the New York Times editorial board calling for the Trump administration to allow an IMF loan to move forward and for technical assistance. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board ran a rejoinder on Wednesday.
Some experts say even with sanctions relief or waivers for humanitarian and medical supplies, it’s unclear if countries like Iran have enough foreign currency reserves to buy up medical supplies—or if foreign companies and international banks would be willing to broker the transactions in the first place. “Even if they say they’re not targeting Iran’s humanitarian imports, they’re still chilling the markets overall,” Brian O’Toole, a former CIA and Treasury Department official, told Foreign Policy.
Administration officials also believe Iran’s military and its proxies could immediately take advantage of any broader sanctions relief, even if sanctions were only eased temporarily. “If Iran could suddenly repatriate a bunch of money, or Iran’s [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] funds were unfrozen, it could start to move those into places where it’s hidden, people couldn’t find them as easily, and then you’re stuck back in a place … where you’ve aided U.S. adversaries,” O’Toole said.
The call for the suspension of sanctions coincides with a Democratic effort led by Rep. Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Adam Smith, head of the armed services panel, to keep the U.S. Agency for International Development from halting aid to areas controlled by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, a suspension that’s set to go into effect on Friday.
“USAID is totally stonewalling efforts to push this suspension back, or to create meaningful carve outs for lifesaving programs,” a former U.S. official familiar with the matter told Foreign Policy.
USAID’s assistant administrator for its Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean, John Barsa, who is set to take over the agency’s top spot in an acting role next month, strongly supports the suspension of U.S. assistance to Houthi-controlled areas, the former official said, though the Trump administration has been warned that the freeze could lack sufficient carve-outs for bystanders living under the Iran-backed group.
But it’s not clear the legislative effort to urge a course change will have an impact on the Trump administration’s efforts to exact what it calls “maximum pressure” on Iran to force it to rein in proxy groups and efforts at ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
Last month, the Trump administration and Switzerland, which has served as the U.S. consular go-between in Iran since Washington severed relations with the Islamic Republic more than 40 years ago, launched a humanitarian channel that would allow companies to avoid American sanctions to provide needed agricultural goods and medical supplies.
But in spite of the gesture, U.S. sanctions on Iran appear to have continued apace as the Pentagon has engaged Iran in a low-level tit-for-tat following rocket attacks on Iraqi bases that killed two American service members.
Earlier Thursday, the Trump administration sanctioned 20 people and businesses linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s elite Quds Force. The State Department said they exploit “Iraq’s dependence on Iranian electricity imports,” as the Trump administration extended a natural gas waiver from U.S. sanctions to Iraq.
Speaking to the Senate’s powerful armed services panel in mid-March, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East said the spread of the novel coronavirus to Iranian military and political leadership had caused Iran’s decision-making to become more unpredictable.
“I think it probably makes them in terms of decision-making more dangerous rather than less dangerous,” U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said.
Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer contributed to this report.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-27--Japan Hopes for a Post-Coronavirus Olympics

Faced with nothing but bad choices , like most of us , and after weeks of delay , the Japanese government finally bowed to the inevitable this week , announcing that the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games are the latest victims of the coronavirus pandemic and agreeing with the International Olympic Committee ( IOC ) to put off the event until sometime in the next year .
The decision represents a blow to Japan , which had been promoting the games at the highest levels .
That may be why the announcement came directly from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials organizing the event or the governor of Tokyo .
Abe said that the move was taken at his request “ in order to have the world ’ s athletes compete in their very best condition and to create a safe event in which the spectators can have peace of mind.
” The pressure to act had been building , even as the IOC said just two days prior to the announcement that it would take up to four weeks to assess the situation .
The idea of going ahead became untenable when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for a delay .
Canada even came up with a tagline for its demand : “ postpone today—conquer tomorrow.
” Adding to global concerns was the fact that COVID-19 has spread far beyond Asia , with the United States and Europe now ground zero , while East Asian countries appear to have the virus under relative containment .
The announcement comes at an already troubled time for Japan ’ s economy .
Following a consumption tax increase last October , gross domestic product growth had already turned negative in the last three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contraction at a 7.1 percent annual rate .
As the coronavirus shock waves rippled across Asia , economists began hurriedly marking down their forecasts for the first and second quarters of the year , with a consensus that Japan was now entering a full-blown recession .
Goldman Sachs estimates that Japan ’ s economy will now contract at a 4.5 percent rate in the first quarter and drop an additional 7.2 percent in the second quarter .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ]
The games represented more than just money , however .
The 1964 Olympic Games were an iconic event for Japan and are still invoked as a symbol of the golden era of economic strength that put a vanquished nation back on the global stage in record time , rising from near total destruction in 1945 to become , for many years , the world ’ s second-largest economy .
Given that it had a population that was just 14 percent of China ’ s , an inconvenient location far from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , and a total lack of the raw materials and energy needed to propel an industrialized economy , this was no mean feat .
The Abe government had hoped that the 2020 Games could be used to demonstrate a Japan that was back after the nearly 30 years of economic stagnation that had followed the boom years and knocked the country to third place in the global charts after China ’ s striking rise .
Japan has so far avoided the worst of the pandemic itself .
After early negative headlines about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ship in Yokohama , Japan , it has largely fallen off the radar .
With a reported 1,387 cases , it is now the 29th most-affected country , even though heavily hit neighbors China and South Korea account for about one-half of its foreign tourists .
No one has provided a definitive reason for this apparent anomaly , although theories abound .
One hypothesis is that Japanese culture has long embraced “ social distancing , ” with handshakes still the exception and people avoiding face-to-face situations even on crowded trains .
In addition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually met with a nasty sideways look , while the wearing of masks is widespread , especially in the spring pollen season .
The other theories are less benign .
One : that the government is covering up the true state of affairs by restricting access to COVID-19 tests .
( To get tested , you need to have symptoms and call a special hotline . )
Another theory in this vein suggests that the government could cover up COVID-19 deaths by categorizing them as simply pneumonia , which would require a fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would seem to have the opposite goal in mind .
The remaining theory is that Japan is just pushing back the inevitable .
A government panel of experts on Thursday said new infections were probably widespread—a determination that allows for Abe to declare an emergency—while a new study done on the passengers from the Diamond Princess found that 40 percent of those testing positive had no symptoms and therefore could be silent spreaders .
This is , of course , a potential concern for all countries , not just Japan .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tokyo Gov .
Yuriko Koike went on television Wednesday night to announce a series of measures to prevent a possible spike in the number of cases .
Her news conference came as Tokyo reported 40 cases , a doubling from the previous day .
On Thursday , officials reported an additional 47 , taking the Tokyo number to more than 250 .
While still a small number in the world ’ s biggest urban area , it is , after all , how other regions started on the road to massive problems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by newly emerging global standards .
She asked everyone to stay at home for the weekend and said that people should avoid enclosed places with poor ventilation , places where many people gather , and having close conversations .
No mandatory lockdown or closures of businesses were announced , at least for now .
The announcement was enough to send Tokyoites to the supermarkets the next morning , with rice , cooking oil , and meats quickly emptying out , a phenomenon not previously seen in the city , except regarding masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , toilet paper .
Organizers for the games are now hard at work on how to repackage everything , shrinking a process that has taken seven years into a matter of months .
This is an area where Japan typically wins the gold .
In 2011 , after violence-wracked Egypt was determined to be an unsuitable place for the upcoming 2012 annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund , Tokyo was given the task , putting it all together in record time without an operational hitch .
The costs are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will blow budgets out of the water .
But the figures look large only in the “ pre-COVID ” era of spending .
With the United States now spending an initial $ 2 trillion , the total $ 12 billion budget for the Olympics looks like a rounding error .
Goldman Sachs said in a new economic forecast for Japan that “ postponing the Olympics will be quite limited compared to the economic fallout from COVID-19 itself.
” Organizers have not given a figure , although the Nikkei financial newspaper quotes sources as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in the official budget , while the corporate giants who each pay around $ 120 million for the right to be top-tier sponsors will also presumably get another year to use the Olympics as part of their advertising and marketing .
Small travel-related companies in Japan may not be so lucky with expectations that some will not be able to survive the twin whammy of a postponed Olympics and a COVID-19 downturn in business .
One mitigating factor is that the games will—if all goes well—go ahead at some point rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic buildup for the games began , economists had forecasted a post-Olympics hangover with a potential contraction in 2021 .
While that might still happen , at least the specter is put off for another year .
On balance , there is a better economic bounce from a games where visitors are able to fly into the country in a renewed airline market and go out to celebrate instead of self-quarantining in hotel rooms .
Abe ’ s announcement made clear that his bureaucrats had already been up late at night preparing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games would still be called “ Tokyo 2020.
” That alone saves an awful lot of money that would be needed for all the new signs and means that souvenirs will not need to be thrown out .
In addition , he has optimistically pivoted the games to represent “ proof that humankind has defeated the novel coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) .
” For Abe , already set to leave office in 2021 , a renewed Olympics could be a powerful final legacy .

Faced with nothing but bad choices, like most of us, and after weeks of delay, the Japanese government finally bowed to the inevitable this week, announcing that the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games are the latest victims of the coronavirus pandemic and agreeing with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to put off the event until sometime in the next year.
Faced with nothing but bad choices, like most of us, and after weeks of delay, the Japanese government finally bowed to the inevitable this week, announcing that the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games are the latest victims of the coronavirus pandemic and agreeing with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to put off the event until sometime in the next year.
The decision represents a blow to Japan, which had been promoting the games at the highest levels. That may be why the announcement came directly from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the IOC, rather than the officials organizing the event or the governor of Tokyo. Abe said that the move was taken at his request “ in order to have the world’s athletes compete in their very best condition and to create a safe event in which the spectators can have peace of mind.”
The pressure to act had been building, even as the IOC said just two days prior to the announcement that it would take up to four weeks to assess the situation. The idea of going ahead became untenable when both the Canadian and Australian Olympic committees called for a delay. Canada even came up with a tagline for its demand: “postpone today—conquer tomorrow.” Adding to global concerns was the fact that COVID-19 has spread far beyond Asia, with the United States and Europe now ground zero, while East Asian countries appear to have the virus under relative containment.
The announcement comes at an already troubled time for Japan’s economy. Following a consumption tax increase last October, gross domestic product growth had already turned negative in the last three months of 2019, with a severe contraction at a 7.1 percent annual rate. As the coronavirus shock waves rippled across Asia, economists began hurriedly marking down their forecasts for the first and second quarters of the year, with a consensus that Japan was now entering a full-blown recession. Goldman Sachs estimates that Japan’s economy will now contract at a 4.5 percent rate in the first quarter and drop an additional 7.2 percent in the second quarter.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
The games represented more than just money, however. The 1964 Olympic Games were an iconic event for Japan and are still invoked as a symbol of the golden era of economic strength that put a vanquished nation back on the global stage in record time, rising from near total destruction in 1945 to become, for many years, the world’s second-largest economy. Given that it had a population that was just 14 percent of China’s, an inconvenient location far from the economic centers of Europe and the United States, and a total lack of the raw materials and energy needed to propel an industrialized economy, this was no mean feat.
The Abe government had hoped that the 2020 Games could be used to demonstrate a Japan that was back after the nearly 30 years of economic stagnation that had followed the boom years and knocked the country to third place in the global charts after China’s striking rise.
Japan has so far avoided the worst of the pandemic itself. After early negative headlines about the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in Yokohama, Japan, it has largely fallen off the radar. With a reported 1,387 cases, it is now the 29th most-affected country, even though heavily hit neighbors China and South Korea account for about one-half of its foreign tourists.
No one has provided a definitive reason for this apparent anomaly, although theories abound. One hypothesis is that Japanese culture has long embraced “social distancing,” with handshakes still the exception and people avoiding face-to-face situations even on crowded trains. In addition, sneezing or coughing in public is usually met with a nasty sideways look, while the wearing of masks is widespread, especially in the spring pollen season.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
The other theories are less benign. One: that the government is covering up the true state of affairs by restricting access to COVID-19 tests. (To get tested, you need to have symptoms and call a special hotline.) Another theory in this vein suggests that the government could cover up COVID-19 deaths by categorizing them as simply pneumonia, which would require a fairly broad conspiracy within the medical community when it would seem to have the opposite goal in mind. The remaining theory is that Japan is just pushing back the inevitable. A government panel of experts on Thursday said new infections were probably widespread—a determination that allows for Abe to declare an emergency—while a new study done on the passengers from the Diamond Princess found that 40 percent of those testing positive had no symptoms and therefore could be silent spreaders. This is, of course, a potential concern for all countries, not just Japan.
There are signs now of increasing worry. Tokyo Gov. Yuriko Koike went on television Wednesday night to announce a series of measures to prevent a possible spike in the number of cases. Her news conference came as Tokyo reported 40 cases, a doubling from the previous day. On Thursday, officials reported an additional 47, taking the Tokyo number to more than 250. While still a small number in the world’s biggest urban area, it is, after all, how other regions started on the road to massive problems.
Koike’s measures were pretty tame by newly emerging global standards. She asked everyone to stay at home for the weekend and said that people should avoid enclosed places with poor ventilation, places where many people gather, and having close conversations. No mandatory lockdown or closures of businesses were announced, at least for now. The announcement was enough to send Tokyoites to the supermarkets the next morning, with rice, cooking oil, and meats quickly emptying out, a phenomenon not previously seen in the city, except regarding masks, alcohol-based cleaners, and, of course, toilet paper.
Organizers for the games are now hard at work on how to repackage everything, shrinking a process that has taken seven years into a matter of months. This is an area where Japan typically wins the gold. In 2011, after violence-wracked Egypt was determined to be an unsuitable place for the upcoming 2012 annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Tokyo was given the task, putting it all together in record time without an operational hitch.
The costs are another issue, since all of this will blow budgets out of the water. But the figures look large only in the “pre-COVID” era of spending. With the United States now spending an initial $2 trillion, the total $12 billion budget for the Olympics looks like a rounding error. Goldman Sachs said in a new economic forecast for Japan that “postponing the Olympics will be quite limited compared to the economic fallout from COVID-19 itself.”
Organizers have not given a figure, although the Nikkei financial newspaper quotes sources as saying it would be around $3 billion in the official budget, while the corporate giants who each pay around $120 million for the right to be top-tier sponsors will also presumably get another year to use the Olympics as part of their advertising and marketing. Small travel-related companies in Japan may not be so lucky with expectations that some will not be able to survive the twin whammy of a postponed Olympics and a COVID-19 downturn in business.
One mitigating factor is that the games will—if all goes well—go ahead at some point rather than be canceled outright. Ever since the economic buildup for the games began, economists had forecasted a post-Olympics hangover with a potential contraction in 2021. While that might still happen, at least the specter is put off for another year. On balance, there is a better economic bounce from a games where visitors are able to fly into the country in a renewed airline market and go out to celebrate instead of self-quarantining in hotel rooms.
Abe’s announcement made clear that his bureaucrats had already been up late at night preparing for this eventuality. He said that the games would still be called “Tokyo 2020.” That alone saves an awful lot of money that would be needed for all the new signs and means that souvenirs will not need to be thrown out. In addition, he has optimistically pivoted the games to represent “proof that humankind has defeated the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).” For Abe, already set to leave office in 2021, a renewed Olympics could be a powerful final legacy.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-27--U.N. Security Council Paralyzed as Contagion Rages

The United Nations Security Council is watching the greatest global health crisis in a century unfold from the sidelines , quarreling over the wisdom of working online , batting down proposals to help organize the response to the pandemic , and largely ignoring the U.N. secretary-general ’ s appeal for a global cease-fire .
The paralysis comes at a time when the United States is pressing the 15-nation council to adopt a resolution that would largely blame China for unleashing the pathogen on the world .
The initiative—which appears to be part of a broader U.S. strategy to deflect responsibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of the virus—is certain to be blocked by China , which wields veto power .
The council ’ s inaction marks a stark contrast from the Security Council ’ s previous response to international threats , from al Qaeda ’ s 9/11 attack on the United States to the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa .
During that health crisis , the Obama administration rallied the council behind a plan to flood the region with medical workers and to shift the mandate of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in the region—working with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of disease , which killed over 10,000 people .
In an effort to fill the current political vacuum , U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday issued a call for a sweeping global cease-fire to allow war-wracked countries and insurgent forces to turn their attention to battling the virus .
His peace envoys in Yemen and Syria have taken up the call for a cease-fire .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folly of war , ” he said .
“ That is why today , I am calling for an immediate global cease-fire in all corners of the world .
It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.
” Some council diplomats have weighed in on the issue .
But the council has yet to lend its concerted voice to the appeal .
Kelly Knight Craft , the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , said in a teleconference on Thursday that Libya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stability , as continued conflict threatens to fuel the spread of COVID-19.
” “ This is not the time for violence , but rather for all actors to immediately suspend military operations , reject toxic foreign interference , and improve the ability of health authorities to combat this global pandemic , ” she said in her prepared remarks .
The Russian foreign ministry issued a statement calling for a humanitarian pause in some regional armed conflicts , as well as an end to economic sanctions .
But it insisted that such a pause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military operations in places such as Syria , where it says it is fighting terrorism .
“ We are highly concerned over the situation on territories controlled by terrorist groups , who could not care less about people ’ s wellbeing , ” according to the Russian statement .
“ We are confident that counter-terrorist measures must be carried on.
” On Friday , the president of the U.N. General Assembly Tijjani Muhammad Bande , organized a televised press conference with the U.N. Secretary-General , the Security Council president , and the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to draw attention to the crisis .
During the press conference , China ’ s U.N. ambassador defended the council ’ s response to the crisis , saying “ we are calling for cessation of hostilities , we are calling for ceasefire , and we are calling for unhindered access for humanitarian access.
” Meanwhile , six governments , Ghana , Indonesia , Liechtenstein , Norway , Switzerland , and Singapore , proposed the 193-member General Assembly step in and adopt a resolution underscoring the “ central role ” of the U.N. in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the co-sponsors had secured signatures of support for the measure from 147 nations .
“ In this moment of great uncertainty and global anxiety , it is important for the voice of the U.N. General Assembly to be heard loud and clear , ” according to a letter from the co-sponsors of the resolution .
“ We believe that the United Nations system has a central role to play in mobilising and coordinating the global response to this pandemic.
” The U.N. Security Council—which held its last meeting on U.N. premises on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of procedural and political disputes .
U.S. and China Turn Coronavirus Into a Geopolitical Football Beijing is using the outbreak to boost its reputation for global cooperation while Washington plays the blame-Beijing game .
U.N .
Diplomacy In The Age of Contagion Some delegations are repatriating vulnerable staff from New York amid a surge in coronavirus infections .
Secretary-General Guterres says it ’ s time for “ solidarity not exclusion.
” In the days following the suspension of meetings , China , which holds the presidency of the Security Council this month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construct a secure teleconferencing system to conduct meetings remotely .
The United States , meanwhile , proposed the council officially acknowledge the need to continue its work online .
“ In the event of a serious public emergency , including a public health emergency , that renders a physical meeting of the Security Council impractical , the Security Council may hold meetings using video conferencing as a last resort to ensure the participation of all members and to function continuously , ” reads a U.S. proposal presented to the council .
“ Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deemed to be meetings pursuant to the United Nations Charter and the Security Council ’ s Provisional Rules of Procedure.
” But Russia blocked the U.S. proposal , arguing that all formal sessions of the Security Council must take place inside the U.N. Security Council chamber .
“ We shouldn ’ t be afraid to gather from time to time in [ the ] UNSC Chamber , ” Russia ’ s Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia wrote in a March 16 letter to the Chinese ambassador .
“ In the current circumstances it is important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that [ the ] U.N. and its Security Council are functioning.
” Nebenzia said Moscow was prepared to explore , on a case-by-case basis , the possibility of letting some delegations participate in council discussion by teleconference , but only if Russia and other members were permitted to meet inside the U.N. Security Council chamber .
So far , Russia has agreed to discuss U.N. activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Libya on Tuesday and Thursday with the council by teleconference .
But it has insisted that the meetings carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the council managed to issue a press statement condemning a terrorist attack at the Dharamshala Sikh temple in Kabul , which killed 25 people .
Russia has denied it is holding up deliberations , saying it has allowed televised video conference meetings to take place .
The “ Security Council remains active , ” Russia ’ s U.N. mission wrote Thursday on Twitter .
“ Discussions of # DRC via VTC on Tuesday initiated by [ Russia ] clearly demonstrated that .
Today # Libya was discussed int his format .
# Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ council , however , has so far been unable to convince Russia to renew the mandates for U.N. operations in Somalia and Sudan , or to grant an extension to a panel of experts monitoring sanctions against North Korea .
But Russia was not alone in gumming up the council ’ s works .
Last week , Estonia , one of the council ’ s 10 temporary members , sought support for a Security Council statement that voiced concern that the pandemic “ may constitute a threat to international peace and security ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confronting the pathogen .
But that initiative was blocked by South Africa and China , which argued that the pandemic did not constitute a threat to peace and security and should be addressed in institutions like the World Health Organization .
France , meanwhile , has since opened discrete discussions involving the council ’ s four other key powers , Britain , China , Russia , and the United States , on a resolution that would address the pandemic .
The French initiative infuriated some of Paris ’ s European colleagues , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any event , the French draft appeared unlikely to be adopted .
The United States proposed an amendment to the text that would refer to the coronavirus as the “ Wuhan virus , ” a move in line with Trump administration efforts to blame China for the initial spread of the virus .
The U.S. initiative—which was first reported by NBC—is certain to be blocked by China .
The initiative comes after foreign ministers of the G-7 industrial powers , meeting via videoconference , failed to adopt a statement on the pandemic after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it refer to the pathogen as the “ Wuhan virus.
” The council ’ s inaction contrasts with its previous approach to global health crises in Africa over the past two decades .
In January 2000 , U.S. Vice President Al Gore presided over a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the threat posed by HIV to regional security in Africa .
The then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , Richard Holbrooke , who spearheaded the effort , subsequently insisted the U.N. supply its peacekeepers with condoms to halt the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Council declared HIV , the virus that causes AIDS , a national security threat .
In September 2014 , Samantha Power , then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , presided over the first emergency session of the Security Council to address the Ebola epidemic in West Africa .
During the meeting , the council adopted a resolution declaring Ebola a “ threat to international peace and security ” and urged the world to send more health care workers and supplies to the hardest-hit countries : Liberia , Sierra Leone , and Guinea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment for an initiative from the Security Council to get out in front of this , rather than appearing irrelevant in the face of a global crisis , ” said Karin Landgren , the executive director of the Security Council Report , a nonprofit .
“ The big picture is that countries have largely turned inward and there isn ’ t an immediate thought to how they could best come together to address this.
” “ It is high time that the Security Council address this threat to international peace and security , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.N. lawyer , wrote on the news site PassBlue .
“ The Security Council has a responsibility to coordinate a prompt and effective global response.
” If the council is unwilling , she added , the U.N. chief should “ invoke his authority ” under the U.N. Charter to bring the matter before the council .
Rob Berschinski , who was involved in negotiations over the Ebola resolution for the United States , told Foreign Policy it defies logic to contend that the current pandemic is not a threat to international peace and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that various conflicts and crisis scenarios are going to be directly impacted by this , ” said Berschinski , who outlined a series of steps the council could take to coordinate the international response in a piece published by Just Security .
“ It ’ s reasonable to say , ‘ We ’ re going to take care of America first , ’ ” Berschinski told Foreign Policy .
“ But at the same time it would be a massive mistake not to be setting up structures that are undoubtedly going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for months , and perhaps years.
” As for assigning responsibility for the virus ’ s spread , that can wait until later , he said .
“ I think China deserves a considerable amount of blame for the way its government covered up in the initial stages of the pandemic , ” Berschinski said .
“ But at this point we need to make the global health security that threatens hundreds of thousands of lives , if not more , a priority over this seemingly petty argument over who is more to @ @ @

The United Nations Security Council is watching the greatest global health crisis in a century unfold from the sidelines, quarreling over the wisdom of working online, batting down proposals to help organize the response to the pandemic, and largely ignoring the U.N. secretary-general’s appeal for a global cease-fire.
The United Nations Security Council is watching the greatest global health crisis in a century unfold from the sidelines, quarreling over the wisdom of working online, batting down proposals to help organize the response to the pandemic, and largely ignoring the U.N. secretary-general’s appeal for a global cease-fire.
The paralysis comes at a time when the United States is pressing the 15-nation council to adopt a resolution that would largely blame China for unleashing the pathogen on the world. The initiative—which appears to be part of a broader U.S. strategy to deflect responsibility for its own sluggish response to the spread of the virus—is certain to be blocked by China, which wields veto power.
The council’s inaction marks a stark contrast from the Security Council’s previous response to international threats, from al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack on the United States to the 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. During that health crisis, the Obama administration rallied the council behind a plan to flood the region with medical workers and to shift the mandate of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in the region—working with the support of the U.S. military—to help contain the spread of disease, which killed over 10,000 people.
In an effort to fill the current political vacuum, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday issued a call for a sweeping global cease-fire to allow war-wracked countries and insurgent forces to turn their attention to battling the virus. His peace envoys in Yemen and Syria have taken up the call for a cease-fire.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
“The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war,” he said. “That is why today, I am calling for an immediate global cease-fire in all corners of the world. It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.”
Some council diplomats have weighed in on the issue. But the council has yet to lend its concerted voice to the appeal.
Kelly Knight Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in a teleconference on Thursday that Libya must find “a political path to stability, as continued conflict threatens to fuel the spread of COVID-19.”
“This is not the time for violence, but rather for all actors to immediately suspend military operations, reject toxic foreign interference, and improve the ability of health authorities to combat this global pandemic,” she said in her prepared remarks.
The Russian foreign ministry issued a statement calling for a humanitarian pause in some regional armed conflicts, as well as an end to economic sanctions. But it insisted that such a pause would not apply any constraints on its military operations in places such as Syria, where it says it is fighting terrorism.
“We are highly concerned over the situation on territories controlled by terrorist groups, who could not care less about people’s wellbeing,” according to the Russian statement. “We are confident that counter-terrorist measures must be carried on.”
On Friday, the president of the U.N. General Assembly Tijjani Muhammad Bande, organized a televised press conference with the U.N. Secretary-General, the Security Council president, and the president of the U.N. Economic and Social Council to draw attention to the crisis.
During the press conference, China’s U.N. ambassador defended the council’s response to the crisis, saying “we are calling for cessation of hostilities, we are calling for ceasefire, and we are calling for unhindered access for humanitarian access.”
Meanwhile, six governments, Ghana, Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Singapore, proposed the 193-member General Assembly step in and adopt a resolution underscoring the “central role” of the U.N. in addressing the crises. By late Friday, the co-sponsors had secured signatures of support for the measure from 147 nations.
“In this moment of great uncertainty and global anxiety, it is important for the voice of the U.N. General Assembly to be heard loud and clear,” according to a letter from the co-sponsors of the resolution. “We believe that the United Nations system has a central role to play in mobilising and coordinating the global response to this pandemic.”
The U.N. Security Council—which held its last meeting on U.N. premises on March 12—has been riven by a range of procedural and political disputes.
Read More Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump speak in Beijing. Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump speak in Beijing. U.S. and China Turn Coronavirus Into a Geopolitical Football Beijing is using the outbreak to boost its reputation for global cooperation while Washington plays the blame-Beijing game. Exclusive | Colum Lynch, Robbie Gramer The U.N. Security Council chamber sits empty The U.N. Security Council chamber sits empty U.N. Diplomacy In The Age of Contagion Some delegations are repatriating vulnerable staff from New York amid a surge in coronavirus infections. Report | Colum Lynch Iranians, some wearing protective masks Iranians, some wearing protective masks U.N. Calls for Rolling Back Sanctions to Battle Pandemic Secretary-General Guterres says it’s time for “solidarity not exclusion.” Report | Colum Lynch
In the days following the suspension of meetings, China, which holds the presidency of the Security Council this month, and the U.N. secretariat have labored to construct a secure teleconferencing system to conduct meetings remotely.
The United States, meanwhile, proposed the council officially acknowledge the need to continue its work online.
“In the event of a serious public emergency, including a public health emergency, that renders a physical meeting of the Security Council impractical, the Security Council may hold meetings using video conferencing as a last resort to ensure the participation of all members and to function continuously,” reads a U.S. proposal presented to the council. “Security Council meetings held through virtual means are deemed to be meetings pursuant to the United Nations Charter and the Security Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure.”
But Russia blocked the U.S. proposal, arguing that all formal sessions of the Security Council must take place inside the U.N. Security Council chamber.
“We shouldn’t be afraid to gather from time to time in [the] UNSC Chamber,” Russia’s Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia wrote in a March 16 letter to the Chinese ambassador. “In the current circumstances it is important to show the rest of the world that [the] U.N. and its Security Council are functioning.”
Nebenzia said Moscow was prepared to explore, on a case-by-case basis, the possibility of letting some delegations participate in council discussion by teleconference, but only if Russia and other members were permitted to meet inside the U.N. Security Council chamber. So far, Russia has agreed to discuss U.N. activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Libya on Tuesday and Thursday with the council by teleconference. But it has insisted that the meetings carry no official weight. On Thursday, the council managed to issue a press statement condemning a terrorist attack at the Dharamshala Sikh temple in Kabul, which killed 25 people.
Russia has denied it is holding up deliberations, saying it has allowed televised video conference meetings to take place. The “Security Council remains active,” Russia’s U.N. mission wrote Thursday on Twitter. “Discussions of #DRC via VTC on Tuesday initiated by [Russia] clearly demonstrated that. Today #Libya was discussed int his format. #Syria is pending on 30 March.”
The council, however, has so far been unable to convince Russia to renew the mandates for U.N. operations in Somalia and Sudan, or to grant an extension to a panel of experts monitoring sanctions against North Korea.
But Russia was not alone in gumming up the council’s works.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Last week, Estonia, one of the council’s 10 temporary members, sought support for a Security Council statement that voiced concern that the pandemic “may constitute a threat to international peace and security” and called for greater international cooperation in confronting the pathogen.
But that initiative was blocked by South Africa and China, which argued that the pandemic did not constitute a threat to peace and security and should be addressed in institutions like the World Health Organization.
France, meanwhile, has since opened discrete discussions involving the council’s four other key powers, Britain, China, Russia, and the United States, on a resolution that would address the pandemic. The French initiative infuriated some of Paris’s European colleagues, which claim they were not consulted. In any event, the French draft appeared unlikely to be adopted. The United States proposed an amendment to the text that would refer to the coronavirus as the “Wuhan virus,” a move in line with Trump administration efforts to blame China for the initial spread of the virus. The U.S. initiative—which was first reported by NBC—is certain to be blocked by China.
The initiative comes after foreign ministers of the G-7 industrial powers, meeting via videoconference, failed to adopt a statement on the pandemic after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that it refer to the pathogen as the “Wuhan virus.”
The council’s inaction contrasts with its previous approach to global health crises in Africa over the past two decades.
In January 2000, U.S. Vice President Al Gore presided over a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the threat posed by HIV to regional security in Africa. The then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, who spearheaded the effort, subsequently insisted the U.N. supply its peacekeepers with condoms to halt the spread of HIV. Shortly after, the National Security Council declared HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, a national security threat.
In September 2014, Samantha Power, then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, presided over the first emergency session of the Security Council to address the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. During the meeting, the council adopted a resolution declaring Ebola a “threat to international peace and security” and urged the world to send more health care workers and supplies to the hardest-hit countries: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea.
“This would be a good moment for an initiative from the Security Council to get out in front of this, rather than appearing irrelevant in the face of a global crisis,” said Karin Landgren, the executive director of the Security Council Report, a nonprofit. “The big picture is that countries have largely turned inward and there isn’t an immediate thought to how they could best come together to address this.”
“It is high time that the Security Council address this threat to international peace and security,” Mona Ali Khalil, a former U.N. lawyer, wrote on the news site PassBlue. “The Security Council has a responsibility to coordinate a prompt and effective global response.”
If the council is unwilling, she added, the U.N. chief should “invoke his authority” under the U.N. Charter to bring the matter before the council.
Rob Berschinski, who was involved in negotiations over the Ebola resolution for the United States, told Foreign Policy it defies logic to contend that the current pandemic is not a threat to international peace and security.
“It’s likely that various conflicts and crisis scenarios are going to be directly impacted by this,” said Berschinski, who outlined a series of steps the council could take to coordinate the international response in a piece published by Just Security.
“It’s reasonable to say, ‘We’re going to take care of America first,’” Berschinski told Foreign Policy. “But at the same time it would be a massive mistake not to be setting up structures that are undoubtedly going to be necessary to fight this disease internationally, for months, and perhaps years.”
As for assigning responsibility for the virus’s spread, that can wait until later, he said.
“I think China deserves a considerable amount of blame for the way its government covered up in the initial stages of the pandemic,” Berschinski said. “But at this point we need to make the global health security that threatens hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more, a priority over this seemingly petty argument over who is more to blame.”