foreignpolicy--2020-05-13--Family Planning Efforts Upended by the Coronavirus

On a hot afternoon in April , while the rest of her village stayed home under lockdown , community health worker Urmila Patel walked to a pharmacy to purchase a pregnancy test for a neighbor .
As one of India ’ s almost 900,000 accredited social health workers , Patel usually focuses on maternal and newborn health .
For hundreds of millions of Indians , these workers—locals who are given basic health care training by the government—are their primary source of information and services related to family planning .
When the Indian government went into overdrive in its fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patel , who lives in Maharashtra state , were drafted to the front lines and ordered to mostly replace their usual rounds with coronavirus monitoring .
Since before India ’ s lockdown began on March 25 , Patel has been going door to door daily to offer coronavirus education and screen residents of Surul village for symptoms , referring them to local health centers if needed .
But even as the need for reproductive health services mounts under lockdown , India ’ s shift in resources has left families empty-handed .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus survey , but it isn ’ t enough .
I can no longer provide the kind of support that I once did , ” Patel said .
In mid-March , local health officials provided Patel with just four packets of contraceptive pills and a single box of 90 condoms for her rounds—covering 200 households in total .
She has not received any restocks since .
Even before March , supplies had been running low due to coronavirus-related interruptions in supply chains , leaving her neighbor and many others in the village @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned with the pregnancy test , it proved her neighbor Geetanjali Waidende ’ s worst fears : She was pregnant .
With two young children and virtually no income , Waidende couldn ’ t afford another child .
But she was already too far along to qualify for a medical abortion , and with surgical abortion halted during the lockdown , her options were few .
“ I have no choice in the matter now , I have to keep the child , ” she said , sounding worried .
“ How am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third one ?
I am scared.
” With the lockdown entering week eight , health experts fear irreparable harm has been done to India ’ s already struggling family planning efforts .
Many women are no longer receiving potentially life-saving services that can help them make informed choices about delaying , preventing , and spacing pregnancies .
“ Sexual and reproductive rights were in crisis [ globally ] even before the pandemic hit .
The pandemic just makes these injustices more visible , ” said Seema Jalan , the executive director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may well bring a baby boom few can afford , along with a dangerous increase in unsafe abortions .
In a country of about 357 million -age women , any diminution in family planning services could be catastrophic .
The Guttmacher Institute , a research group that supports abortion rights , estimates that even a 10 percent decline in use of reversible contraceptive methods in low- and middle-income countries due to reduced access would result in an additional 49 million women with an unmet need for contraceptives and an additional 15 million unintended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With a population of over 1.2 billion , India is likely to soon become the most populous country in the world , and this growth poses a significant challenge to health care access , especially that of women .
Over 200 million women around the globe contend with an unmet need for family planning ; more than one in five of these women reside in India .
“ All the work that has gone into the development and well-being of women and children , I think the pandemic has pushed us back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work that has gone into the development and well-being of women and children , I think the pandemic has pushed us back by 50 years , ” said Shamala Dupte , the director of medical at Family Planning Association of India .
It was only when India extended the lockdown after the initial 21-day period that family planning and abortion services were added to the list of essential services .
Even after that , access has been uneven .
The Family Planning Association and other organizations that have managed to keep open their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients are now able to come in .
In spite of being the first country in the world to start a large-scale family planning program , in 1952 , India has long struggled to increase contraceptive use nationwide , stymied by stigma and inadequate women ’ s rights .
The most widely accepted form of contraception remains tubal ligation or female sterilization ( used by 36 percent of married Indian couples ) , despite evidence it is among the most invasive and dangerous family planning methods .
Recent years have seen a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods , but the pandemic threatens to unmake much of that progress .
“ In a community where women know about contraception and how to prevent pregnancy , all of a sudden they find two major things : one is that money is drying up because jobs are lost , and second , they can not move anywhere .
Suddenly they ’ re living in a police state , ” said Sharad Iyengar , the executive director of Action Research and Training for Health , a nonprofit public health organization working with rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian state of Rajasthan .
India is hardly unique .
Around the globe , countries that long relied on community health workers for critical family planning services have seen services disappear overnight .
In Zimbabwe , the restriction of movement and suspension of community mobilization has meant that one of the country ’ s largest family planning providers , Marie Stopes , has seen almost a 70 percent reduction in the number of women that it is able to reach and support .
Reproductive Health Uganda , which said it reaches almost 70 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs , has had to similarly suspend much of its work amid the outbreak .
“ Right now , everything , from political will to resources , has been diverted towards COVID-19 at the expense of women .
In the context of the African continent , this means the government is likely to face another catastrophe in the form of increased maternal mortality , ” said Abebe Shibru , the Marie Stopes Zimbabwe country director .
Both countries are ramping up alternative tactics—for example , offering telephone counseling services , issuing public service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the most commonplace forms of contraception , such as injectables that women could take home and administer themselves .
But their work is cut out for them .
Research from the Ebola crisis shows the sharp impact on maternal services that a pandemic can have .
In Sierra Leone , an estimated 3,600 maternal deaths , neonatal deaths , and stillbirths were traced back to “ disrupted services and fear of seeking treatment during the outbreak , ” according to the Guttmacher Institute .
That figure was on par with deaths caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been worsened by shocks to the global supply chain of contraceptives .
Major suppliers of condoms and IUDs located in India and Malaysia have reported production and shipping restrictions .
According to the latest update by the United Nations Population Fund ( UNFPA ) , as many as 46 countries face stock-out risks of at least one form of contraceptive in the next six months .
Both Zimbabwe and Uganda are staring at a potential shortage in contraceptives due to delay and complications in shipping clearances .
Shibru said Marie Stopes Zimbabwe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two or three weeks if the expected consignments did not arrive .
In Uganda , there is already a shortage of implants and emergency contraceptives .
In Nepal , Tika Kumari Ghimire , an outreach worker with Marie Stopes , continues to receive calls , as she is the only family planning service provider for many women , and government facilities report an unavailability of supplies and confusion over lockdown rules .
Last week , she trekked to a health post about an hour and a half away—having to first convince the staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lockdown wasn ’ t prohibited—to provide a contraceptive implant to a client .
Even in India , supply chains have been affected as pharmaceutical factories faced disruption in both production and distribution during lockdown ; India ’ s import of pharmaceutical ingredients from China was also impacted during this period .
According to a front-line worker in Uttar Pradesh , supplies have already run out of Chhaya , a popular weekly oral contraceptive pill introduced by the government .
For accredited social health workers in India , this has been an overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers allowed to move freely , many fear contracting the coronavirus themselves due to a lack of safety gear .
Rampant misinformation regarding the cause , spread , and treatment of COVID-19 has created more visceral threats in the form of physical attacks and harassment .
As voluntary workers who do not receive a fixed salary ( paid , instead , on a performance-based incentive system based on how many of their patients get IUDs or deliver in health centers , for instance ) , they are also demanding fair compensation .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A U.S. policy formally known as the Mexico City policy , but often called the “ global gag rule , ” has prevented billions of dollars of U.S. global health aid from reaching health care providers .
The United States also defunded the UNFPA for a third consecutive year in 2019 .
“ For marginalized populations that have already lost their access to health care because of the impacts of the Global Gag Rule , there is no recourse ; and their lives and livelihoods will be further jeopardized in the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Universal Access Project stressed .
“ In the U.S. , Congress has a role to play : it can and should move to permanently end the Global Gag Rule and restore full funding to UNFPA .
When the crisis eases , we can not go back to business as usual ; and when the next one hits , we must be better prepared.
” For now , service providers hope that donors and governments will quickly realize the importance of safeguarding reproductive and sexual health rights in these extraordinary times .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The impact has been made .
Unintended pregnancies are going to increase , and we have seen gender-based violence increasing , ” said Simon Richard Mugenyi , the advocacy and communications manager at Reproductive Health Uganda .
“ We can only decrease the magnitude of the impact now , and that ’ s what we are trying to do.
” In India , the health worker Patel is distressed that the challenges for women of reproductive age as well as female health workers will exacerbate further .
“ The response to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gendered , disproportionately affecting women and girls .
This time is the same , ” said Dupte of the Family Planning Association of India .
“ But at least after so many years of advocacy , family planning has come to the forefront .
The efforts need to continue .
”

On a hot afternoon in April, while the rest of her village stayed home under lockdown, community health worker Urmila Patel walked to a pharmacy to purchase a pregnancy test for a neighbor. As one of India’s almost 900,000 accredited social health workers, Patel usually focuses on maternal and newborn health. For hundreds of millions of Indians, these workers—locals who are given basic health care training by the government—are their primary source of information and services related to family planning.
On a hot afternoon in April, while the rest of her village stayed home under lockdown, community health worker Urmila Patel walked to a pharmacy to purchase a pregnancy test for a neighbor. As one of India’s almost 900,000 accredited social health workers, Patel usually focuses on maternal and newborn health. For hundreds of millions of Indians, these workers—locals who are given basic health care training by the government—are their primary source of information and services related to family planning.
When the Indian government went into overdrive in its fight against the coronavirus, community health workers like Patel, who lives in Maharashtra state, were drafted to the front lines and ordered to mostly replace their usual rounds with coronavirus monitoring. Since before India’s lockdown began on March 25, Patel has been going door to door daily to offer coronavirus education and screen residents of Surul village for symptoms, referring them to local health centers if needed. But even as the need for reproductive health services mounts under lockdown, India’s shift in resources has left families empty-handed.
“I continue to distribute contraceptives while carrying out the coronavirus survey, but it isn’t enough. I can no longer provide the kind of support that I once did,” Patel said.
In mid-March, local health officials provided Patel with just four packets of contraceptive pills and a single box of 90 condoms for her rounds—covering 200 households in total. She has not received any restocks since. Even before March, supplies had been running low due to coronavirus-related interruptions in supply chains, leaving her neighbor and many others in the village with no birth control.
When Patel returned with the pregnancy test, it proved her neighbor Geetanjali Waidende’s worst fears: She was pregnant. With two young children and virtually no income, Waidende couldn’t afford another child. But she was already too far along to qualify for a medical abortion, and with surgical abortion halted during the lockdown, her options were few. “I have no choice in the matter now, I have to keep the child,” she said, sounding worried. “How am I going to take care of this third one? I am scared.”
With the lockdown entering week eight, health experts fear irreparable harm has been done to India’s already struggling family planning efforts. Many women are no longer receiving potentially life-saving services that can help them make informed choices about delaying, preventing, and spacing pregnancies. “Sexual and reproductive rights were in crisis [globally] even before the pandemic hit. The pandemic just makes these injustices more visible,” said Seema Jalan, the executive director of the Universal Access Project. The coming year may well bring a baby boom few can afford, along with a dangerous increase in unsafe abortions. In a country of about 357 million reproductive -age women, any diminution in family planning services could be catastrophic.
The Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, estimates that even a 10 percent decline in use of reversible contraceptive methods in low- and middle-income countries due to reduced access would result in an additional 49 million women with an unmet need for contraceptives and an additional 15 million unintended pregnancies over the course of a year. With a population of over 1.2 billion, India is likely to soon become the most populous country in the world, and this growth poses a significant challenge to health care access, especially that of women. Over 200 million women around the globe contend with an unmet need for family planning; more than one in five of these women reside in India.
“All the work that has gone into the development and well-being of women and children, I think the pandemic has pushed us back by 50 years.”
“All the work that has gone into the development and well-being of women and children, I think the pandemic has pushed us back by 50 years,” said Shamala Dupte, the director of medical at Family Planning Association of India. It was only when India extended the lockdown after the initial 21-day period that family planning and abortion services were added to the list of essential services. Even after that, access has been uneven. The Family Planning Association and other organizations that have managed to keep open their clinics say only the smallest fraction of patients are now able to come in.
In spite of being the first country in the world to start a large-scale family planning program, in 1952, India has long struggled to increase contraceptive use nationwide, stymied by stigma and inadequate women’s rights. The most widely accepted form of contraception remains tubal ligation or female sterilization (used by 36 percent of married Indian couples), despite evidence it is among the most invasive and dangerous family planning methods. Recent years have seen a huge demand among women for more modern contraceptive methods, but the pandemic threatens to unmake much of that progress.
“In a community where women know about contraception and how to prevent pregnancy, all of a sudden they find two major things: one is that money is drying up because jobs are lost, and second, they cannot move anywhere. Suddenly they’re living in a police state,” said Sharad Iyengar, the executive director of Action Research and Training for Health, a nonprofit public health organization working with rural women from tribal communities in the northwestern Indian state of Rajasthan.
India is hardly unique. Around the globe, countries that long relied on community health workers for critical family planning services have seen services disappear overnight. In Zimbabwe, the restriction of movement and suspension of community mobilization has meant that one of the country’s largest family planning providers, Marie Stopes, has seen almost a 70 percent reduction in the number of women that it is able to reach and support. Reproductive Health Uganda, which said it reaches almost 70 percent of its clients through community outreach programs, has had to similarly suspend much of its work amid the outbreak. “Right now, everything, from political will to resources, has been diverted towards COVID-19 at the expense of women. In the context of the African continent, this means the government is likely to face another catastrophe in the form of increased maternal mortality,” said Abebe Shibru, the Marie Stopes Zimbabwe country director. Both countries are ramping up alternative tactics—for example, offering telephone counseling services, issuing public service announcements, or planning to offer alternatives to the most commonplace forms of contraception, such as injectables that women could take home and administer themselves.
But their work is cut out for them. Research from the Ebola crisis shows the sharp impact on maternal services that a pandemic can have. In Sierra Leone, an estimated 3,600 maternal deaths, neonatal deaths, and stillbirths were traced back to “disrupted services and fear of seeking treatment during the outbreak,” according to the Guttmacher Institute. That figure was on par with deaths caused by Ebola itself.
Family planning efforts have been worsened by shocks to the global supply chain of contraceptives. Major suppliers of condoms and IUDs located in India and Malaysia have reported production and shipping restrictions. According to the latest update by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), as many as 46 countries face stock-out risks of at least one form of contraceptive in the next six months. Both Zimbabwe and Uganda are staring at a potential shortage in contraceptives due to delay and complications in shipping clearances. Shibru said Marie Stopes Zimbabwe’s supplies would run out in two or three weeks if the expected consignments did not arrive. In Uganda, there is already a shortage of implants and emergency contraceptives.
In Nepal, Tika Kumari Ghimire, an outreach worker with Marie Stopes, continues to receive calls, as she is the only family planning service provider for many women, and government facilities report an unavailability of supplies and confusion over lockdown rules. Last week, she trekked to a health post about an hour and a half away—having to first convince the staff there that providing family planning services during the lockdown wasn’t prohibited—to provide a contraceptive implant to a client.
Even in India, supply chains have been affected as pharmaceutical factories faced disruption in both production and distribution during lockdown; India’s import of pharmaceutical ingredients from China was also impacted during this period. According to a front-line worker in Uttar Pradesh, supplies have already run out of Chhaya, a popular weekly oral contraceptive pill introduced by the government.
For accredited social health workers in India, this has been an overwhelming time. As some of the only workers allowed to move freely, many fear contracting the coronavirus themselves due to a lack of safety gear. Rampant misinformation regarding the cause, spread, and treatment of COVID-19 has created more visceral threats in the form of physical attacks and harassment. As voluntary workers who do not receive a fixed salary (paid, instead, on a performance-based incentive system based on how many of their patients get IUDs or deliver in health centers, for instance), they are also demanding fair compensation.
Over everything lies the shadow of international funding. A U.S. policy formally known as the Mexico City policy, but often called the “global gag rule,” has prevented billions of dollars of U.S. global health aid from reaching health care providers. The United States also defunded the UNFPA for a third consecutive year in 2019. “For marginalized populations that have already lost their access to health care because of the impacts of the Global Gag Rule, there is no recourse; and their lives and livelihoods will be further jeopardized in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Jalan of the Universal Access Project stressed. “In the U.S., Congress has a role to play: it can and should move to permanently end the Global Gag Rule and restore full funding to UNFPA. When the crisis eases, we cannot go back to business as usual; and when the next one hits, we must be better prepared.”
For now, service providers hope that donors and governments will quickly realize the importance of safeguarding reproductive and sexual health rights in these extraordinary times. “We cannot stop the impact. The impact has been made. Unintended pregnancies are going to increase, and we have seen gender-based violence increasing,” said Simon Richard Mugenyi, the advocacy and communications manager at Reproductive Health Uganda. “We can only decrease the magnitude of the impact now, and that’s what we are trying to do.”
In India, the health worker Patel is distressed that the challenges for women of reproductive age as well as female health workers will exacerbate further. “The response to any epidemic or disaster situation is always so gendered, disproportionately affecting women and girls. This time is the same,” said Dupte of the Family Planning Association of India. “But at least after so many years of advocacy, family planning has come to the forefront. The efforts need to continue.”


foreignpolicy--2020-05-13--Bowing to Russia, U.N. Halts Funding for Pandemic Relief in Northeastern Syria

Bowing to Russia , U.N .
Halts Funding for Pandemic Relief in Northeastern Syria Facing pressure from Russia , the chief ally to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad , U.N. relief agencies have been instructed to stop funding programs by private charities transporting lifesaving health services across the Iraqi border to northeastern Syria , dealing a blow to international efforts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic in opposition-controlled territory , according to diplomatic and relief sources and confidential U.N. guidance .
The United Nations informed its relief agencies several weeks ago that they were permitted to fund private charities operating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Damascus and authorized to work there by the Syrian government , which has proved unwilling , or unable , to meet the region ’ s health needs .
The funding freeze comes as the World Health Organization ( WHO ) and other U.N. relief agencies have raised concerns that they lack sufficient access rights to respond to the health needs of some 2 million people in the region .
The aid crisis in northeastern Syria—which is inhabited predominantly by Kurds , displaced civilians , and anti-government groups—has worsened since the U.N. Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shut down a U.N.-sanctioned humanitarian aid hub on Jan. 10 at the Yaroubia crossing on the Iraqi-Syrian border .
That deprived the U.N. of an explicit legal mandate to serve the region .
The border crossing served as a key pipeline for WHO and private relief groups delivering medical assistance into northeastern Syria .
Efforts by the U.N. to identify alternate routes to fill the gap have so far proved unsuccessful .
“ [ N ] ew options are needed to fill the significant gaps and to continue the humanitarian assistance previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO warned the U.N. Security Council last week in a confidential memo reviewed by Foreign Policy .
“ The urgency to respond is not only to control transmission in NES [ northeastern Syria ] , but also to limit the spread of other areas of Syria that have not yet been affected.
” [ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic . ]
A bipartisan coalition of U.S. congressional leaders has urged the Trump administration to counter efforts by Russia , backed by China , to eliminate the aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies can continue to fund vital cross-border aid operations or form a coalition of like-minded countries to pick up the financial slack .
“ [ T ] he closure of the Ya ’ rubiyah border crossing between Iraq and northeast Syria has hindered the overall humanitarian response and disrupted the UN ’ s ability to deliver specialized medical equipment , ” the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote Tuesday in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
“ Without access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been forced to suspend funding for many of its NGO partners , who must now rely on alternative , woefully inadequate , and easily manipulated means to deliver aid , such as land-based convoys from Damascus.
” Following the council vote on Yaroubia , Mark Lowcock , the undersecretary-general and emergency relief coordinator in the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA ) , appealed to the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs ( OLA ) to advise on the legality of continuing U.N. financial support for aid operations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and relief sources .
OLA , according to those sources , concluded that the U.N. could only fund agencies registered and approved by the Syrian government .
An internal U.N. paper , reflecting the new understanding , outlined more than two dozen U.N. activities that would “ remain lawful ” in northeastern Syria after the closure of Yaroubia .
It recognized only the “ funding to NGOs operating in NES who are authorized to operate by the Government of Syria.
” U.N. officials , meanwhile , advised aid groups that the funding spigot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear whether Russia directly pressed the U.N. to cut funding to aid groups .
But Russia ’ s U.N. ambassador , Vassily Nebenzia , recently made it clear that Moscow vigorously opposed reopening Yaroubia .
“ The Government of Syria is doing its utmost to fight the spread of COVID-19 despite cruel unilateral sanctions , ” Nebenzia told the council in late April .
“ We strongly urge our colleagues not to waste their time on looking for a way to advocate , explicitly or implicitly for getting Al-Yarubiah back and saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The decision triggered fierce pushback from some U.N. relief agencies and private aid groups , which privately protested that the policy would result in a steep deterioration in humanitarian conditions in northeastern Syria , where the vast majority of people live in camps and communities outside of government control .
Lowcock ’ s office subsequently backtracked , informing front-line relief groups that they shouldn ’ t consider any U.N. guidance on the legality of funding legally binding .
One official familiar with the debate said the U.N. agencies are exploring ways in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue their work .
But officials said new financial support from the U.N. has stopped .
Zoe Paxton , the relief coordinator ’ s chief spokesperson , denied the claims that the U.N. lawyers had ever issued an official opinion prohibiting funding for cross-border operations .
“ OCHA did not seek , receive or share official guidance from OLA that UN agencies could only provide funding to NGOs that operate in northeast Syria with the approval of the Government of Syria , ” she told Foreign Policy .
“ Similarly , OCHA did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OLA guidance that UN agencies could not fund NGOs that provide cross-border assistance.
” “ The Security Council decided not to renew the United Nations ’ use of Al Yarubiyah border crossing , ” Paxton added .
“ The United Nations continues to do everything possible to get help to people in need in northeast Syria , including by advocating for expedited and unhindered cross-line humanitarian access.
” The U.N. Security Council granted the legal authority to U.N. and private relief agencies in 2014 to deliver humanitarian assistance to millions of civilians in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jordan , and Turkey .
The arrangement was established in response to Syrian efforts to use food and other humanitarian aid as a weapon of war , cutting off humanitarian assistance to communities suspected of sympathizing with anti-government forces .
Syrian opposition forces also laid siege to government-controlled towns—though on a far smaller scale .
Syrian authorities also routinely removed medical supplies from trucks entering rebel-held territory from Damascus , claiming they could be used to treat fighters .
The cross-border assistance has provided millions of civilians in opposition-controlled territory in northwestern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humanitarian assistance .
Only a fraction of assistance to opposition-held lands comes via cross-line aid shipments that travel from Damascus to opposition-controlled territory and are approved by the government .
Syria has long opposed the cross-border aid pipelines as a violation of its sovereignty , claiming that aid trucks are used to supply weapons to anti-government forces .
In December , Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have extended the mandate to run cross-border operations for more than a year .
But several weeks later , on Jan. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted aid to continue to flow through Turkey to northwestern Syria but ended Security Council approval for the Yaroubia crossing , the key entry point for medical supplies provided by WHO .
In a recent paper prepared for the 15-nation council , WHO raised concerns that the remaining aid pipeline from Damascus would not be able to meet the needs of civilians in northeastern Syria .
“ [ I ] n recent months the supply chain from Iraq has become less effective and reliable , ” according to the WHO paper .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ re-opening of Yaroubia crossing as a matter of urgency , ” but the proposal to reopen Yaroubia—which is vehemently opposed by Russia—was subsequently eliminated from the final paper .
Instead , the revised version merely noted that the Damascus aid pipeline would not be able to address the needs posed by the coronavirus and that there was a need to find alternate routes .
The U.N. , meanwhile , has explored the possibility of filling the supply gap by channeling aid through informal Iraqi crossing points , including the Kurdish-controlled border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relies on damaged pontoon bridges , or a larger crossing point in Tal Abyad , Turkey .
“ UN and NGO partners agree that the cross-line option can not be adequately expanded to meet the needs in NES and will not be sufficient to support an effective response to COVID-19 , ” WHO reported .
“ Over the past three months only 31 % of NGO-supported facilities have received medicines , supplies and equipment through cross-border mechanisms , including hospitals in Tabqa , Ar-Raqqa and Al-Hasakeh , and facilities in IDP [ internally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the vice president for programs and policy at Refugees International , said much of the aid that does reach the north remains in government control .
“ Anyone who thinks northeast Syria is going to be a priority for the regime is dreaming , ” Lang said .
The Syrian government , he added , “ has a well-established reputation of manipulating humanitarian assistance coming into the country.
” Elizabeth Tsurkov , a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who has interviewed health providers throughout the region , echoed Lang ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vast majority of aid flowing into northeastern Syria following the closure of Yaroubia went to a state hospital in Qamishli .
Facing criticism , she said , WHO has since sought to distribute health care assistance more widely throughout the region .
But she said very little coronavirus-related material is finding its way into opposition-held territory .
The challenge at Qamishli , she said , is that patients must cross government checkpoints to get to the hospital .
Most military-age men , she added , are unwilling to go to the hospital for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or reserve service .
“ A large share of the population can not access the services at Qamishli hospital , ” Tsurkov said .
“ It is only accessible to people perceived as loyal to the regime .
”

Facing pressure from Russia, the chief ally to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.N. relief agencies have been instructed to stop funding programs by private charities transporting lifesaving health services across the Iraqi border to northeastern Syria, dealing a blow to international efforts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic in opposition-controlled territory, according to diplomatic and relief sources and confidential U.N. guidance.
Facing pressure from Russia, the chief ally to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.N. relief agencies have been instructed to stop funding programs by private charities transporting lifesaving health services across the Iraqi border to northeastern Syria, dealing a blow to international efforts to respond to the coronavirus pandemic in opposition-controlled territory, according to diplomatic and relief sources and confidential U.N. guidance.
The United Nations informed its relief agencies several weeks ago that they were permitted to fund private charities operating in northeastern Syria only if they were registered in Damascus and authorized to work there by the Syrian government, which has proved unwilling, or unable, to meet the region’s health needs. The funding freeze comes as the World Health Organization (WHO) and other U.N. relief agencies have raised concerns that they lack sufficient access rights to respond to the health needs of some 2 million people in the region.
The aid crisis in northeastern Syria—which is inhabited predominantly by Kurds, displaced civilians, and anti-government groups—has worsened since the U.N. Security Council, acting under pressure from Russia, shut down a U.N.-sanctioned humanitarian aid hub on Jan. 10 at the Yaroubia crossing on the Iraqi-Syrian border. That deprived the U.N. of an explicit legal mandate to serve the region. The border crossing served as a key pipeline for WHO and private relief groups delivering medical assistance into northeastern Syria. Efforts by the U.N. to identify alternate routes to fill the gap have so far proved unsuccessful.
“[N]ew options are needed to fill the significant gaps and to continue the humanitarian assistance previously delivered through Ya’rubiyah,” WHO warned the U.N. Security Council last week in a confidential memo reviewed by Foreign Policy. “The urgency to respond is not only to control transmission in NES [northeastern Syria], but also to limit the spread of other areas of Syria that have not yet been affected.”
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic.]
A bipartisan coalition of U.S. congressional leaders has urged the Trump administration to counter efforts by Russia, backed by China, to eliminate the aid crossings and to either ensure that U.N. agencies can continue to fund vital cross-border aid operations or form a coalition of like-minded countries to pick up the financial slack.
“[T]he closure of the Ya’rubiyah border crossing between Iraq and northeast Syria has hindered the overall humanitarian response and disrupted the UN’s ability to deliver specialized medical equipment,” the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote Tuesday in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “Without access to these border crossings, the UN has been forced to suspend funding for many of its NGO partners, who must now rely on alternative, woefully inadequate, and easily manipulated means to deliver aid, such as land-based convoys from Damascus.”
Following the council vote on Yaroubia, Mark Lowcock, the undersecretary-general and emergency relief coordinator in the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), appealed to the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) to advise on the legality of continuing U.N. financial support for aid operations in northeastern Syria, according to four diplomatic and relief sources. OLA, according to those sources, concluded that the U.N. could only fund agencies registered and approved by the Syrian government. An internal U.N. paper, reflecting the new understanding, outlined more than two dozen U.N. activities that would “remain lawful” in northeastern Syria after the closure of Yaroubia. It recognized only the “funding to NGOs operating in NES who are authorized to operate by the Government of Syria.” U.N. officials, meanwhile, advised aid groups that the funding spigot would be turned off.
It is unclear whether Russia directly pressed the U.N. to cut funding to aid groups. But Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, recently made it clear that Moscow vigorously opposed reopening Yaroubia. “The Government of Syria is doing its utmost to fight the spread of COVID-19 despite cruel unilateral sanctions,” Nebenzia told the council in late April. “We strongly urge our colleagues not to waste their time on looking for a way to advocate, explicitly or implicitly for getting Al-Yarubiah back and saying that this be the ‘only solution.’”
Boys pull a cart in the mud at the Kurdish-run al-Hol camp for the displaced in northeastern Syria.
The decision triggered fierce pushback from some U.N. relief agencies and private aid groups, which privately protested that the policy would result in a steep deterioration in humanitarian conditions in northeastern Syria, where the vast majority of people live in camps and communities outside of government control. Lowcock’s office subsequently backtracked, informing front-line relief groups that they shouldn’t consider any U.N. guidance on the legality of funding legally binding. One official familiar with the debate said the U.N. agencies are exploring ways in which they can help private aid agencies continue their work. But officials said new financial support from the U.N. has stopped.
Zoe Paxton, the relief coordinator’s chief spokesperson, denied the claims that the U.N. lawyers had ever issued an official opinion prohibiting funding for cross-border operations. “OCHA did not seek, receive or share official guidance from OLA that UN agencies could only provide funding to NGOs that operate in northeast Syria with the approval of the Government of Syria,” she told Foreign Policy. “Similarly, OCHA did not seek, receive or share official OLA guidance that UN agencies could not fund NGOs that provide cross-border assistance.”
“The Security Council decided not to renew the United Nations’ use of Al Yarubiyah border crossing,” Paxton added. “The United Nations continues to do everything possible to get help to people in need in northeast Syria, including by advocating for expedited and unhindered cross-line humanitarian access.”
The U.N. Security Council granted the legal authority to U.N. and private relief agencies in 2014 to deliver humanitarian assistance to millions of civilians in opposition-controlled territory through crossing points in Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey. The arrangement was established in response to Syrian efforts to use food and other humanitarian aid as a weapon of war, cutting off humanitarian assistance to communities suspected of sympathizing with anti-government forces. Syrian opposition forces also laid siege to government-controlled towns—though on a far smaller scale. Syrian authorities also routinely removed medical supplies from trucks entering rebel-held territory from Damascus, claiming they could be used to treat fighters.
The cross-border assistance has provided millions of civilians in opposition-controlled territory in northwestern and northeastern Syria with their main source of humanitarian assistance. Only a fraction of assistance to opposition-held lands comes via cross-line aid shipments that travel from Damascus to opposition-controlled territory and are approved by the government.
Syria has long opposed the cross-border aid pipelines as a violation of its sovereignty, claiming that aid trucks are used to supply weapons to anti-government forces. In December, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have extended the mandate to run cross-border operations for more than a year. But several weeks later, on Jan. 10, Moscow negotiated a compromise that permitted aid to continue to flow through Turkey to northwestern Syria but ended Security Council approval for the Yaroubia crossing, the key entry point for medical supplies provided by WHO.
In a recent paper prepared for the 15-nation council, WHO raised concerns that the remaining aid pipeline from Damascus would not be able to meet the needs of civilians in northeastern Syria. “[I]n recent months the supply chain from Iraq has become less effective and reliable,” according to the WHO paper.
The Yaroubia border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
An early draft of the paper called for the “re-opening of Yaroubia crossing as a matter of urgency,” but the proposal to reopen Yaroubia—which is vehemently opposed by Russia—was subsequently eliminated from the final paper. Instead, the revised version merely noted that the Damascus aid pipeline would not be able to address the needs posed by the coronavirus and that there was a need to find alternate routes.
The U.N., meanwhile, has explored the possibility of filling the supply gap by channeling aid through informal Iraqi crossing points, including the Kurdish-controlled border crossings at Walid and Fishkabour, which relies on damaged pontoon bridges, or a larger crossing point in Tal Abyad, Turkey.
“UN and NGO partners agree that the cross-line option cannot be adequately expanded to meet the needs in NES and will not be sufficient to support an effective response to COVID-19,” WHO reported. “Over the past three months only 31% of NGO-supported facilities have received medicines, supplies and equipment through cross-border mechanisms, including hospitals in Tabqa, Ar-Raqqa and Al-Hasakeh, and facilities in IDP [internally displaced persons] camps.”
Hardin Lang, the vice president for programs and policy at Refugees International, said much of the aid that does reach the north remains in government control.
“Anyone who thinks northeast Syria is going to be a priority for the regime is dreaming,” Lang said. The Syrian government, he added, “has a well-established reputation of manipulating humanitarian assistance coming into the country.”
Elizabeth Tsurkov, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute who has interviewed health providers throughout the region, echoed Lang’s concern.
She noted that the vast majority of aid flowing into northeastern Syria following the closure of Yaroubia went to a state hospital in Qamishli. Facing criticism, she said, WHO has since sought to distribute health care assistance more widely throughout the region. But she said very little coronavirus-related material is finding its way into opposition-held territory. The challenge at Qamishli, she said, is that patients must cross government checkpoints to get to the hospital. Most military-age men, she added, are unwilling to go to the hospital for fear of being recruited into the military or reserve service.
“A large share of the population cannot access the services at Qamishli hospital,” Tsurkov said. “It is only accessible to people perceived as loyal to the regime.”


foreignpolicy--2020-05-13--The United States Should Not Align With Russia Against China

The United States Should Not Align With Russia Against China As the coronavirus pandemic rages across the world , it has brought into sharper relief today ’ s foremost geopolitical rivalry .
The United States and China are engaged in an increasingly intense competition for global political influence , economic and technological leadership , and military superiority .
And while China now stands as the United States ’ primary geopolitical rival , Russia also seeks to undermine U.S. interests and disrupt the U.S.-led system .
The challenge these autocratic powers present could be even more severe if they work together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat assessment to Congress , the U.S. intelligence community stated that “ China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.
” In the early days of the Cold War , the Soviet Union and Communist China were formal treaty allies , but they subsequently split , and China eventually switched to America ’ s side in the early 1970s .
Some national security strategists argue that the United States should work with Russia to counter the even bigger threat of China .
But this recommendation is misguided .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again working together closely .
In response , many national security strategists have argued that the United States should seek to peel them apart by working with Russia to counter the even bigger threat of China .
But this recommendation is misguided .
Autocracies like China and Russia will not form a deep strategic partnership , and the costs of cozying up to Russia far outweigh the benefits .
Fortunately , there is a better path : Washington can leverage its democratic advantages , working with its existing democratic allies to counter both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The growing Russian and Chinese strategic relationship is worrying .
The two autocratic powers have cooperated on major energy deals , including a blockbuster $ 55 billion arrangement to pipe Siberian natural gas into China .
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met in several high-level summits , and Xi even declared Putin “ his best friend and colleague.
” Perhaps most troubling , Beijing and Moscow have participated in joint military exercises in both Europe and Asia .
If they were to coordinate and conduct simultaneous military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific , for example , the United States and its allies could be overwhelmed .
These facts have led many observers to conclude that the solution is to play them off against each other .
Just as President Richard Nixon opened to China to work against Moscow during the Cold War , they argue , today Washington could do the reverse .
China is the bigger threat now , so the United States could partner with Russia against the rising power in East Asia .
Former U.S. Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course of action directly in conversations with President Donald Trump , and Robert Blackwill of the Council on Foreign Relations—a former U.S. ambassador to India—has recommended that Washington “ make concessions in order to improve its relationship with Moscow ” as part of a strategy to counter China .
And these and similar options are being considered in the working levels of the U.S. government .
But Russia and China will not form an effective alliance against the United States anytime soon .
In a new book , I examined the strengths and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition and found that autocracies are poor alliance builders .
The ease with which unconstrained dictators rapidly shift their country ’ s policies , backtrack on commitments , and dissemble are not traits that are conducive to building international partnerships .
Indeed , history shows that autocratic allies tend to fight each other more than the enemy .
In spite of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact , Adolf Hitler turned on and invaded the Soviet Union , betraying his partner Joseph Stalin .
The major military action of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Czechoslovakia .
The last time China and Russia were aligned , they nearly fought a nuclear war with each other in the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict .
And Putin invaded Ukraine and Georgia at a time when these countries were involved in the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States .
Moreover , there are many conflicts of interest between Russia and China that will push them apart without any help from the United States .
Depopulation in Russia ’ s Far East has led to fears that an expanding China will attempt a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s new nuclear-armed intermediate-range missiles are not aimed at NATO but meant to deter a rising China .
More broadly , Moscow was the senior partner during the Cold War , and Putin will not be keen to now play second fiddle to Beijing .
While these autocratic powers may cooperate when convenient and opportunistically exploit U.S. weaknesses , they are not likely to form an enduring and coordinated alliance that will pose a major threat to the United States .
Furthermore , there is little to be gained and much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to Moscow .
Russia is unlikely to be open to helping Washington confront Beijing .
While Russia does not want to subordinate itself to China , it does not want to be openly antagonistic toward it either .
In addition , Putin will not want to bolster the United States , the country he sees as his foremost enemy .
In exchange for giving China a cold shoulder , Putin would almost certainly demand unpalatable concessions , such as granting Russia a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and limiting U.S. missile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work with the United States , it would be a mistake to believe him .
Putin can not be trusted to abide by arms control agreements or cease-fires in eastern Ukraine .
Why would Washington stake its strategy for the most important national security challenge of the 21st century on his word ?
Finally , Russia does not bring much to the table .
It is a declining power with a GDP smaller than Italy ’ s .
When energy prices are high , Russia can afford an impressive military , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s military spending has declined over the past several years .
Fortunately , the United States has other potential partners from which to choose .
Democracies excel at building effective alliances , and the United States enjoys formal alliances with the 29 other members of NATO , as well as Japan , South Korea , and Australia .
These nations account for 59 percent of global GDP .
This compares favorably with only a combined 19 percent of global GDP for Russia and China .
The power of this alliance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a global strategy to counter autocratic revisionist powers .
The free world is concerned about the threats posed by China and Russia and are already cooperating on similar policy measures to counter them , but these efforts could be amplified with a coordinated global strategy led by the United States .
Rather than pursue alliances with shifty dictators , Washington should play to its strengths and mobilize its existing strategic partnerships .
The United States and its democratic allies already enjoy the economic , military , and political power needed to excel in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing and Moscow , not Washington , are the ones that should worry about powerful and ideologically hostile enemies aligning against them .

As the coronavirus pandemic rages across the world, it has brought into sharper relief today’s foremost geopolitical rivalry. The United States and China are engaged in an increasingly intense competition for global political influence, economic and technological leadership, and military superiority. And while China now stands as the United States’ primary geopolitical rival, Russia also seeks to undermine U.S. interests and disrupt the U.S.-led system. The challenge these autocratic powers present could be even more severe if they work together.
As the coronavirus pandemic rages across the world, it has brought into sharper relief today’s foremost geopolitical rivalry. The United States and China are engaged in an increasingly intense competition for global political influence, economic and technological leadership, and military superiority. And while China now stands as the United States’ primary geopolitical rival, Russia also seeks to undermine U.S. interests and disrupt the U.S.-led system. The challenge these autocratic powers present could be even more severe if they work together.
In its most recent annual worldwide threat assessment to Congress, the U.S. intelligence community stated that “China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.” In the early days of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and Communist China were formal treaty allies, but they subsequently split, and China eventually switched to America’s side in the early 1970s.
Some national security strategists argue that the United States should work with Russia to counter the even bigger threat of China. But this recommendation is misguided.
Now these revisionist autocratic powers are once again working together closely. In response, many national security strategists have argued that the United States should seek to peel them apart by working with Russia to counter the even bigger threat of China.
But this recommendation is misguided. Autocracies like China and Russia will not form a deep strategic partnership, and the costs of cozying up to Russia far outweigh the benefits. Fortunately, there is a better path: Washington can leverage its democratic advantages, working with its existing democratic allies to counter both Beijing and Moscow at the same time.
The growing Russian and Chinese strategic relationship is worrying. The two autocratic powers have cooperated on major energy deals, including a blockbuster $55 billion arrangement to pipe Siberian natural gas into China. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have met in several high-level summits, and Xi even declared Putin “his best friend and colleague.” Perhaps most troubling, Beijing and Moscow have participated in joint military exercises in both Europe and Asia. If they were to coordinate and conduct simultaneous military attacks on the U.S. alliance system in Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific, for example, the United States and its allies could be overwhelmed.
These facts have led many observers to conclude that the solution is to play them off against each other. Just as President Richard Nixon opened to China to work against Moscow during the Cold War, they argue, today Washington could do the reverse. China is the bigger threat now, so the United States could partner with Russia against the rising power in East Asia.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has reportedly urged this course of action directly in conversations with President Donald Trump, and Robert Blackwill of the Council on Foreign Relations—a former U.S. ambassador to India—has recommended that Washington “make concessions in order to improve its relationship with Moscow” as part of a strategy to counter China. And these and similar options are being considered in the working levels of the U.S. government.
But Russia and China will not form an effective alliance against the United States anytime soon. In a new book, I examined the strengths and weaknesses of democracies and autocracies in great-power competition and found that autocracies are poor alliance builders. The ease with which unconstrained dictators rapidly shift their country’s policies, backtrack on commitments, and dissemble are not traits that are conducive to building international partnerships.
Indeed, history shows that autocratic allies tend to fight each other more than the enemy. In spite of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Adolf Hitler turned on and invaded the Soviet Union, betraying his partner Joseph Stalin. The major military action of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War was attacking its own members, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The last time China and Russia were aligned, they nearly fought a nuclear war with each other in the 1969 Sino-Soviet border conflict. And Putin invaded Ukraine and Georgia at a time when these countries were involved in the Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States.
Moreover, there are many conflicts of interest between Russia and China that will push them apart without any help from the United States. Depopulation in Russia’s Far East has led to fears that an expanding China will attempt a land grab. Russian colleagues report that Russia’s new nuclear-armed intermediate-range missiles are not aimed at NATO but meant to deter a rising China. More broadly, Moscow was the senior partner during the Cold War, and Putin will not be keen to now play second fiddle to Beijing.
While these autocratic powers may cooperate when convenient and opportunistically exploit U.S. weaknesses, they are not likely to form an enduring and coordinated alliance that will pose a major threat to the United States.
Furthermore, there is little to be gained and much to be lost by attempting to sidle up to Moscow. Russia is unlikely to be open to helping Washington confront Beijing. While Russia does not want to subordinate itself to China, it does not want to be openly antagonistic toward it either.
In addition, Putin will not want to bolster the United States, the country he sees as his foremost enemy. In exchange for giving China a cold shoulder, Putin would almost certainly demand unpalatable concessions, such as granting Russia a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and limiting U.S. missile defenses.
Even if Putin did promise to work with the United States, it would be a mistake to believe him. Putin cannot be trusted to abide by arms control agreements or cease-fires in eastern Ukraine. Why would Washington stake its strategy for the most important national security challenge of the 21st century on his word?
Finally, Russia does not bring much to the table. It is a declining power with a GDP smaller than Italy’s. When energy prices are high, Russia can afford an impressive military, but oil prices have been sagging, and Russia’s military spending has declined over the past several years.
Fortunately, the United States has other potential partners from which to choose. Democracies excel at building effective alliances, and the United States enjoys formal alliances with the 29 other members of NATO, as well as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. These nations account for 59 percent of global GDP. This compares favorably with only a combined 19 percent of global GDP for Russia and China.
The power of this alliance of free nations could be better harnessed in a global strategy to counter autocratic revisionist powers. The free world is concerned about the threats posed by China and Russia and are already cooperating on similar policy measures to counter them, but these efforts could be amplified with a coordinated global strategy led by the United States. Rather than pursue alliances with shifty dictators, Washington should play to its strengths and mobilize its existing strategic partnerships.
The United States and its democratic allies already enjoy the economic, military, and political power needed to excel in this new era of great-power competition. Beijing and Moscow, not Washington, are the ones that should worry about powerful and ideologically hostile enemies aligning against them.


foreignpolicy--2020-05-13--Why Populists Understand Eastern Europe

Why Populists Understand Eastern Europe

Amid the turmoil and fear caused by the COVID-19 pandemic , Central and Eastern European populists are wasting no time sowing division and attempting to cement their positions .
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban seized on the crisis to claim extraordinary powers .
Poland ’ s ruling Law and Justice ( PiS ) party has been making arbitrary decisions on things essential for a democratic system : first insisting on keeping the date of the May presidential election despite the pandemic to choke off the opposition ’ s ability to challenge the ruling party and then abruptly canceling the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take place .
In these and similar efforts , populists are returning to a familiar playbook : While stirring resentments , they create a dominant narrative wherein they are the only answer for protecting the people and righting past grievances .
In 2015 , PiS won the parliamentary and presidential elections with the slogan “ Poland in ruins.
” Similar rhetoric brought a string of victories to populists in other Central and Eastern European countries .
You could be forgiven for not understanding why these populists ever came to the fore .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are living in a better world than ever before .
In the history of the region , there has been no precedent for the past 30 years of virtually uninterrupted economic growth , infrastructure development , soaring living standards , and increasing social mobility .
Yet this rapid change also created a deep collective feeling of loss .
Much has been said about the economic upheaval of the early 1990s , which led to job loss on a massive scale as well as to innumerable bankruptcies of firms and entire industries .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different front : the collective loss of familiar habits , the breakup of established relationships , and the destabilization of traditional sources of identity .
In German , there is a word that captures this disruption : schleudern , which means to spin round as if in a washing machine .
In a social sense , the world of Eastern Europe spun—repeatedly—as it strived for a better future after the fall of communism .
Surely , life always involves constant change : We mature and age , we experience successes and failures , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain new ones .
But if the intensity of these changes exceeds the level we can absorb , it causes shock and confusion .
The feeling of loss today in Eastern Europe is what the love for equality was in Alexis de Tocqueville ’ s 19th century : the force that changed everything social and political and ultimately produced social rebellion .
It is this sense of displacement that the region ’ s populists have gripped with both hands .
The fundamental premise of the populist narrative in post-communist countries is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iron Curtain were decades of failure—what one might call les trente honteuses ( French for “ the shameful 30 ” ) .
According to them , the fall of communism and ensuing political transformation were nothing but a fraud perpetrated by elites : Liberal democracy was a cover for oligarchic dominance , European integration a new form of occupation in which Brussels took the place of Moscow .
Liberals were too long blind to this sense of loss .
Even worse , liberals erred by ridiculing this emotion , which is felt across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Eastern European countries , liberals are paying bitterly at the ballot box for this mistake .
Meanwhile , illiberal populists thrive on the defeatist view that follows from a total critique of the last 30 years .
Wherever such politicians gain power by playing on this attitude , they proceed to use it as a smokescreen for dismantling or co-opting independent institutions , the judicial system , and public media outlets .
Populism appeals to those experiencing loss because it is reactive : Populists position themselves as the defenders of social mores @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pressures of a changing world .
In Poland , the government constantly reminds voters that it protects the “ traditional family ” ; in the United States , Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election with the slogan “ Make America Great Again ” ; and in the Netherlands , Thierry Baudet of the right-populist Forum for Democracy warns against the erosion of traditional Dutch values .
Though these politicians are clearly invoking artificial , idealized versions of the past , they appeal to real emotions and longings .
Populist politics translates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concrete feelings , among them an aversion to strangers , the desire to protect one ’ s home and family , and so forth .
Simply highlighting the shortsightedness and economic pitfalls of populism will do little to change the minds of people who find a respite in its promises .
Liberals must instead have ready a rich alternative narrative about the future .
There are many possible elements on which liberals might draw to put together such a vision .
One is the promise of a secure and affluent nation .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation provokes suspicion .
If contemporary Poles , Hungarians , or Bulgarians feel a need for greater emphasis on the national aspect of politics , liberals should not reject this impulse .
Instead , they should look within the history of these nations for examples of robust liberalism and tolerance and use them to build a liberal model that is both attentive to national history and tradition and open to membership in a common European community .
Poland ’ s history , for instance , includes a rich tradition of multiculturalism and democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as attempts in the 18th century at Enlightenment reforms—which , though they failed because of the influence of foreign powers like Russia or Prussia , can still serve as a source of inspiration .
Understanding the feeling of loss that underlies populism ’ s effectiveness will enable liberals to better chart their own course .
They should engage with that emotion and translate it into feelings that will offer an uplifting and positive message for communities and constituents .
Liberals can begin by appealing to people ’ s empathy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deep societal change in post-communist countries is very similar to profound personal grief .
Thus , just as empathy is a critical aid for working through personal loss , so too can it help change the rules of the game in a polarized political community .
This is especially so when empathy is directed toward those who are particularly difficult for liberals to understand , such as voters who support populist parties .
In post-communist countries , there is already some evidence that this approach can yield political victories .
Zuzana Caputova @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2019 Slovak presidential race with a campaign based around , in her words , “ empathy and respect for other people.
” To mount an effective challenge to populism , liberals must harness the politics of emotion to offer a more convincing narrative about the democratic breakthroughs that took place 30 years ago , the decades of change that followed , and the future that lies ahead .
A full version of this essay appears in the April issue of the Journal of Democracy .

Amid the turmoil and fear caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Central and Eastern European populists are wasting no time sowing division and attempting to cement their positions. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban seized on the crisis to claim extraordinary powers. Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has been making arbitrary decisions on things essential for a democratic system: first insisting on keeping the date of the May presidential election despite the pandemic to choke off the opposition’s ability to challenge the ruling party and then abruptly canceling the vote just four days before it was to take place.
Amid the turmoil and fear caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Central and Eastern European populists are wasting no time sowing division and attempting to cement their positions. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban seized on the crisis to claim extraordinary powers. Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has been making arbitrary decisions on things essential for a democratic system: first insisting on keeping the date of the May presidential election despite the pandemic to choke off the opposition’s ability to challenge the ruling party and then abruptly canceling the vote just four days before it was to take place.
In these and similar efforts, populists are returning to a familiar playbook: While stirring resentments, they create a dominant narrative wherein they are the only answer for protecting the people and righting past grievances. In 2015, PiS won the parliamentary and presidential elections with the slogan “Poland in ruins.” Similar rhetoric brought a string of victories to populists in other Central and Eastern European countries.
You could be forgiven for not understanding why these populists ever came to the fore. In material terms, Central and Eastern Europeans are living in a better world than ever before. In the history of the region, there has been no precedent for the past 30 years of virtually uninterrupted economic growth, infrastructure development, soaring living standards, and increasing social mobility. Yet this rapid change also created a deep collective feeling of loss.
Much has been said about the economic upheaval of the early 1990s, which led to job loss on a massive scale as well as to innumerable bankruptcies of firms and entire industries. But the most staggering loss came on a different front: the collective loss of familiar habits, the breakup of established relationships, and the destabilization of traditional sources of identity. In German, there is a word that captures this disruption: schleudern, which means to spin round as if in a washing machine. In a social sense, the world of Eastern Europe spun—repeatedly—as it strived for a better future after the fall of communism. Surely, life always involves constant change: We mature and age, we experience successes and failures, we bid goodbye to old surroundings and gain new ones. But if the intensity of these changes exceeds the level we can absorb, it causes shock and confusion.
The feeling of loss today in Eastern Europe is what the love for equality was in Alexis de Tocqueville’s 19th century: the force that changed everything social and political and ultimately produced social rebellion. It is this sense of displacement that the region’s populists have gripped with both hands. The fundamental premise of the populist narrative in post-communist countries is that the 30 years since the fall of the Iron Curtain were decades of failure—what one might call les trente honteuses (French for “the shameful 30”). According to them, the fall of communism and ensuing political transformation were nothing but a fraud perpetrated by elites: Liberal democracy was a cover for oligarchic dominance, European integration a new form of occupation in which Brussels took the place of Moscow.
Liberals were too long blind to this sense of loss. Even worse, liberals erred by ridiculing this emotion, which is felt across the social spectrum. In many Central and Eastern European countries, liberals are paying bitterly at the ballot box for this mistake. Meanwhile, illiberal populists thrive on the defeatist view that follows from a total critique of the last 30 years. Wherever such politicians gain power by playing on this attitude, they proceed to use it as a smokescreen for dismantling or co-opting independent institutions, the judicial system, and public media outlets.
Populism appeals to those experiencing loss because it is reactive: Populists position themselves as the defenders of social mores or forms of community under threat from the pressures of a changing world. In Poland, the government constantly reminds voters that it protects the “traditional family”; in the United States, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election with the slogan “Make America Great Again”; and in the Netherlands, Thierry Baudet of the right-populist Forum for Democracy warns against the erosion of traditional Dutch values. Though these politicians are clearly invoking artificial, idealized versions of the past, they appeal to real emotions and longings. Populist politics translates the vague emotion of loss into more concrete feelings, among them an aversion to strangers, the desire to protect one’s home and family, and so forth.
Simply highlighting the shortsightedness and economic pitfalls of populism will do little to change the minds of people who find a respite in its promises. Liberals must instead have ready a rich alternative narrative about the future. There are many possible elements on which liberals might draw to put together such a vision.
One is the promise of a secure and affluent nation. Unfortunately, for many liberals the mere word nation provokes suspicion. If contemporary Poles, Hungarians, or Bulgarians feel a need for greater emphasis on the national aspect of politics, liberals should not reject this impulse. Instead, they should look within the history of these nations for examples of robust liberalism and tolerance and use them to build a liberal model that is both attentive to national history and tradition and open to membership in a common European community. Poland’s history, for instance, includes a rich tradition of multiculturalism and democracy in the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as attempts in the 18th century at Enlightenment reforms—which, though they failed because of the influence of foreign powers like Russia or Prussia, can still serve as a source of inspiration.
Understanding the feeling of loss that underlies populism’s effectiveness will enable liberals to better chart their own course. They should engage with that emotion and translate it into feelings that will offer an uplifting and positive message for communities and constituents. Liberals can begin by appealing to people’s empathy. The collective emotion of loss caused by rapid and deep societal change in post-communist countries is very similar to profound personal grief. Thus, just as empathy is a critical aid for working through personal loss, so too can it help change the rules of the game in a polarized political community. This is especially so when empathy is directed toward those who are particularly difficult for liberals to understand, such as voters who support populist parties.
In post-communist countries, there is already some evidence that this approach can yield political victories. Zuzana Caputova, a previously little-known activist, won the 2019 Slovak presidential race with a campaign based around, in her words, “empathy and respect for other people.” To mount an effective challenge to populism, liberals must harness the politics of emotion to offer a more convincing narrative about the democratic breakthroughs that took place 30 years ago, the decades of change that followed, and the future that lies ahead.
A full version of this essay appears in the April issue of the Journal of Democracy.