foreignpolicy--2020-04-14--U.S. Governors Defy Trump by Forming Regional Alliances

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Ten U.S. states form alliances to coordinate reopening their economies while Trump asserts his “ authority is total , ” Benny Gantz is granted a 48-hour extension to form a government in Israel , and the first U.S. active duty service member dies of COVID-19 .
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday , please sign up here .
Two groups of governors on America ’ s east and west coasts declared they would form regional alliances to coordinate a reopening of their respective economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-third of the U.S. population and roughly 35 percent of U.S .
Gross Domestic Product .
On Monday , California , Oregon , and Washington announced the Western States Pact to “ flip the script on COVID-19 ” and “ work together on a shared approach ” to reopening the economies of each state .
The governors of New York , New Jersey , Connecticut , Pennsylvania , Delaware and Rhode Island also formed a working group to plan a reopening in the Northeast region , with Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker announcing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stressed the importance of regional coordination , given that much of New York ’ s workforce commutes from neighboring New Jersey and Connecticut .
Do they trust the White House ?
The state leaders appear skeptical of the Trump administration ’ s ability to lead the country out of a lockdown carefully and responsibly and asserted their right as governors to end the lockdowns that they imposed .
“ An economic recovery only occurs on the back of a complete health care recovery , ” New Jersey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ jumping in too early ” could result in “ unintended consequences which could be grave.
” What does Trump think ?
The plans put the governors at odds with the White House , where U.S. President Donald Trump pushed back when asked whether a state governor could defy a presidential order to reopen , “ When somebody is president of the United States , the authority is total , ” Trump said at a Monday press briefing .
How are other countries beginning to open up ?
Spain made its first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed roughly 300,000 non-essential workers to return to work , mostly in the construction and manufacturing sectors .
The number of new daily coronavirus cases in Spain has dropped in recent days , and on Monday the country recorded its smallest increase in cases since March 22 .
It is the beginning of a gradual relaxation of strict lockdown procedures in Europe as well as a test of whether countries have succeeded in flattening their coronavirus curves : In Austria , small shops will reopen today , and in Denmark , schools and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France is not following the trend , as French President Emmanuel Macron announced that schools and shops would remain closed until May 11 .
Netanyahu-Gantz coalition grows closer .
The possibility of a coalition government between Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s Likud party and Benny Gantz ’ s Blue and White party remains despite Gantz ’ s 28-day negotiating mandate expiring at midnight yesterday .
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin granted a late request for an extension from both Netanyahu and Gantz to continue their negotiations for 48 hours , which have been held up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Haaretz .
Rivlin has given Gantz until midnight on Wednesday to come to an agreement .
Gantz ’ s decision to open talks with Likud have badly weakened his party .
A Monday poll asking who voters would consider if an election was held that day showed a four seat gain for Likud , while Blue and White would lose almost half of their 33 seats .
First active duty U.S. service member dies of COVID-19 .
A U.S. sailor died on Monday , the first casualty of the coronavirus outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first active duty U.S. service member to die of COVID-19 .
The coronavirus stricken aircraft carrier was forced to dock in Guam after hundreds of sailors fell ill with coronavirus symptoms .
The ship ’ s commander , Capt .
Brett Crozier , had been relieved from command after a letter he wrote highlighting the conditions aboard the ship was leaked .
The Acting Secretary of the Navy , Thomas Modly , then resigned after off-color comments he made criticizing Crozier to the crew of the carrier .
Sanders endorses Biden .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic primary , Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president during a live video chat between the two .
“ I am asking all Americans … to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy , which I endorse , to make certain that we defeat somebody who I believe is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country , ” he told Biden during the chat .
With Sanders ’ endorsement , Sen. Elizabeth Warren now remains the only major former 2020 candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chernobyl .
A fire in the forests near Chernobyl continues to rage over a week after it began as it grows closer to the defunct nuclear power plant , threatening to unleash further radiation into the surrounding area .
Activists from Greenpeace Russia accused the Ukrainian government of downplaying the size of the initial blaze , citing satellite imagery showing the burnt area was much larger than officials had claimed .
“ A fire approaching a nuclear or hazardous radiation facility is always a risk , ” Rashid Alimov , head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday .
“ In this case we ’ re hoping for rain tomorrow.
” Dry weather is forecast in Chernobyl throughout this week .
Ireland ’ s new government .
Two months after an inconclusive general election , Ireland ’ s two major parties , Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are on the cusp of forming a coalition government .
Each government since the country ’ s founding has featured either party , but this would be the first time the two parties would enter government together .
By joining together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the left-wing nationalist party Sinn Fein , which received the most votes in February ’ s election .
If travel restrictions are eased in the coming months and airports resume normal traffic , your pilot may be a little rusty .
Regulations stipulate pilots must have executed three takeoffs and three landings within the past 90 days to be allowed fly a plane and that becomes difficult when airlines worldwide are effectively grounded .
Flight simulators can count toward the pilot ’ s total , however , many of these facilities have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said it would not bring legal action against pilots whose certificates would expire between March 31 and June 30 of this year if they do end up taking to the air .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Ten U.S. states form alliances to coordinate reopening their economies while Trump asserts his “authority is total,” Benny Gantz is granted a 48-hour extension to form a government in Israel, and the first U.S. active duty service member dies of COVID-19.
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Ten U.S. states form alliances to coordinate reopening their economies while Trump asserts his “authority is total,” Benny Gantz is granted a 48-hour extension to form a government in Israel, and the first U.S. active duty service member dies of COVID-19.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
U.S. Governors Form Alliances to Coordinate Reopening Economies
Two groups of governors on America’s east and west coasts declared they would form regional alliances to coordinate a reopening of their respective economies. Together the ten states represent approximately one-third of the U.S. population and roughly 35 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product.
On Monday, California, Oregon, and Washington announced the Western States Pact to “flip the script on COVID-19” and “work together on a shared approach” to reopening the economies of each state. The governors of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Rhode Island also formed a working group to plan a reopening in the Northeast region, with Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker announcing his state would join the group, too. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stressed the importance of regional coordination, given that much of New York’s workforce commutes from neighboring New Jersey and Connecticut.
Do they trust the White House? The state leaders appear skeptical of the Trump administration’s ability to lead the country out of a lockdown carefully and responsibly and asserted their right as governors to end the lockdowns that they imposed. “An economic recovery only occurs on the back of a complete health care recovery,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said, adding that “jumping in too early” could result in “unintended consequences which could be grave.”
What does Trump think? The plans put the governors at odds with the White House, where U.S. President Donald Trump pushed back when asked whether a state governor could defy a presidential order to reopen, “When somebody is president of the United States, the authority is total,” Trump said at a Monday press briefing.
How are other countries beginning to open up? Spain made its first step in easing lockdown restrictions as it allowed roughly 300,000 non-essential workers to return to work, mostly in the construction and manufacturing sectors. The number of new daily coronavirus cases in Spain has dropped in recent days, and on Monday the country recorded its smallest increase in cases since March 22.
It is the beginning of a gradual relaxation of strict lockdown procedures in Europe as well as a test of whether countries have succeeded in flattening their coronavirus curves: In Austria, small shops will reopen today, and in Denmark, schools and childcare centers will reopen on Wednesday. France is not following the trend, as French President Emmanuel Macron announced that schools and shops would remain closed until May 11.
What We’re Following Today
Netanyahu-Gantz coalition grows closer. The possibility of a coalition government between Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party remains despite Gantz’s 28-day negotiating mandate expiring at midnight yesterday. Israeli President Reuven Rivlin granted a late request for an extension from both Netanyahu and Gantz to continue their negotiations for 48 hours, which have been held up over the matter of appointing judges, according to Haaretz. Rivlin has given Gantz until midnight on Wednesday to come to an agreement.
Gantz’s decision to open talks with Likud have badly weakened his party. A Monday poll asking who voters would consider if an election was held that day showed a four seat gain for Likud, while Blue and White would lose almost half of their 33 seats.
First active duty U.S. service member dies of COVID-19. A U.S. sailor died on Monday, the first casualty of the coronavirus outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the first active duty U.S. service member to die of COVID-19. The coronavirus stricken aircraft carrier was forced to dock in Guam after hundreds of sailors fell ill with coronavirus symptoms.
The ship’s commander, Capt. Brett Crozier, had been relieved from command after a letter he wrote highlighting the conditions aboard the ship was leaked. The Acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, then resigned after off-color comments he made criticizing Crozier to the crew of the carrier.
Sanders endorses Biden. Just five days since he dropped out of the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden for president during a live video chat between the two. “I am asking all Americans … to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse, to make certain that we defeat somebody who I believe is the most dangerous president in the modern history of this country,” he told Biden during the chat. With Sanders’ endorsement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren now remains the only major former 2020 candidate not to have endorsed Biden.
Keep an Eye On
Fire in Chernobyl. A fire in the forests near Chernobyl continues to rage over a week after it began as it grows closer to the defunct nuclear power plant, threatening to unleash further radiation into the surrounding area. Activists from Greenpeace Russia accused the Ukrainian government of downplaying the size of the initial blaze, citing satellite imagery showing the burnt area was much larger than officials had claimed. “A fire approaching a nuclear or hazardous radiation facility is always a risk,” Rashid Alimov, head of energy projects at Greenpeace Russia, said on Monday. “In this case we’re hoping for rain tomorrow.” Dry weather is forecast in Chernobyl throughout this week.
Ireland’s new government. Two months after an inconclusive general election, Ireland’s two major parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are on the cusp of forming a coalition government. Each government since the country’s founding has featured either party, but this would be the first time the two parties would enter government together. By joining together, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael would edge out the left-wing nationalist party Sinn Fein, which received the most votes in February’s election.
Odds and Ends
If travel restrictions are eased in the coming months and airports resume normal traffic, your pilot may be a little rusty. Regulations stipulate pilots must have executed three takeoffs and three landings within the past 90 days to be allowed fly a plane and that becomes difficult when airlines worldwide are effectively grounded. Flight simulators can count toward the pilot’s total, however, many of these facilities have been closed due to the coronavirus outbreak. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said it would not bring legal action against pilots whose certificates would expire between March 31 and June 30 of this year if they do end up taking to the air.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-13--Outgoing USAID Chief Says Pandemic Underscores Importance of Foreign Aid

On April 10 , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s top foreign aid official stepped down from his post in a long-planned departure , saying the coronavirus pandemic shows how critical U.S. assistance to global health organizations has become , especially in the developing world .
In an interview with Foreign Policy , Mark Green , the outgoing administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development ( USAID ) , raised alarms about how refugees and displaced populations will be affected by the pandemic and reflected on the Trump administration ’ s repeated attempts to cut funding for foreign aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do less .
It ’ s not magic , right ?
It ’ s not a mystery , ” he said .
“ It ’ s a reminder to us , the challenges that we see , that the investments that we make , particularly health infrastructure investments , may not have immediate tangible payoffs , but they are an essential part of a long-term strategy.
” With Green ’ s departure , some in the aid community fear for USAID ’ s future , particularly as it grapples with how to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a pandemic that has infected more than 1.9 million people , killed over 119,000 , and brought the global economy to its knees .
While the virus has ravaged developed countries , many experts fear that the world ’ s least developed countries—where USAID conducts its most important humanitarian work—will be next .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Green said he was worried most about how the pandemic would impact people displaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 71 million or so people displaced around the world in nearly every corner of the world .
People are in motion .
People are vulnerable .
And so , I think they are particularly vulnerable to some of the challenges from COVID-19 , ” he said .
“ Finding ways to be able to reach out and help those communities will be an essential part of not just getting the outbreak under control but ending the pandemic.
” Green was something of an anomaly in the Trump administration .
For over two and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multibillion-dollar foreign aid agency without the level of scandal or political drama that came to dominate other agencies .
He outlasted a secretary of state , defense secretary , and multiple national security advisors , along with a raft of other top administration officials who were sacked or resigned amid scandal and controversy .
He took over an agency that , at least on paper , looked like a prime target for the cadre of anti-establishment populist insurgents that helped propel Trump to the White House ; “ America First ” seemed entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of delivering billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries .
To the surprise of many veteran foreign aid experts , USAID has emerged relatively unscathed—at least compared with other federal agencies that were dragged into scandals or even the president ’ s impeachment trial .
Green oversaw a reorganization of the agency to streamline its bureaucracies—a stark contrast to the State Department ’ s fumbling attempts to enact its own reforms—and bipartisan pushback in Congress fended off yearly proposals to substantially slash USAID ’ s budget .
All the while , Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintaining good ties with both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill without drawing the ire of a famously mercurial and combative president .
Green , a former Wisconsin Republican congressman and U.S. ambassador to Tanzania , was no stranger to the world of international aid when he was tapped to be Trump ’ s USAID chief .
He also balanced ties between the aid community—chock-full of Trump critics—and powerful figures in the administration who repeatedly tried to gut funding for diplomacy and foreign aid , according to six current and former USAID officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard for USAID budgets internally , ” said Nicole Widdersheim , a former National Security Council staffer and USAID official .
“ Honestly I think , compared to what the baseline expectations were for what would happen to USAID under a Trump administration , what Mark ’ s been able to achieve was really a best-case scenario , ” said Jeremy Konyndyk , a former senior USAID official under President Barack Obama now at the Center for Global Development .
Green , who had been in the job since August 2017 , did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the president during the interview .
He said the pandemic underscored the importance of U.S. foreign aid for global health programs—though the Trump administration proposed cuts to global health programs in its federal budget proposal released this year .
“ I think the crisis that we ’ re all facing right now should serve as a reminder that these kinds of investments are important—not just for our partners , they ’ re important for us , ” Green said .
Green ’ s tenure at USAID had its rocky and politically perilous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down U.S. foreign aid through bureaucratic maneuvering when the aid cuts were rejected by Congress .
USAID also caught criticism from international aid organizations focused on women ’ s rights for its hard-line stance on sexual and reproductive health , arguing that the administration ’ s anti-abortion stances hampered international efforts to improve women ’ s health , particularly in developing countries .
Senior administration officials have rejected these criticisms .
USAID also faced political pressure and a controversy in 2018 , when Vice President Mike Pence ’ s office pressured the agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq .
USAID staffers felt that the administration ’ s efforts to influence apolitical procurement processes could violate constitutional restrictions on favoring one religion over another and could also inflame sectarian tensions in Iraq , as ProPublica reported .
One top career USAID official , Maria Longi , was reportedly removed from her post following pressure from Pence ’ s office .
The move angered many rank-and-file USAID officers , who felt she was being unfairly scapegoated , according to several current and former USAID officials .
Green declined to comment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work USAID had done in Iraq .
“ I would never comment on internal personnel matters of this agency , ” he said .
“ What I can say is I ’ m a big fan of the work that we ’ re doing in places like northern Iraq .
And I think that we have crafted tools and initiatives that are helping very vulnerable communities respond and rebuild after suffering the worst kinds of assaults and discrimination and persecution by violent extremists , most notably ISIS.
” Some of the administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green as he departed his post , including Sen. Bob Menendez , the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has publicly sparred with Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the past .
“ Faced by an Administration that has relentlessly sought to cut foreign development and humanitarian relief programs it incorrectly views as charity , I sincerely appreciated Administrator Green ’ s commitment to defending programs and funds that are proven to advance U.S. national security , help lift up the world ’ s most impoverished , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn promote global stability , ” Menendez said in a statement after Green ’ s departure was announced .
Green will become the new president of Arizona State University ’ s McCain Institute for International Leadership , named after late Republican Sen. John McCain .
The former president of the institute , Kurt Volker , was Trump ’ s special envoy for Ukraine and stepped down following the impeachment investigation .
Trump has appointed John Barsa , a well-connected Trump appointee in USAID overseeing Latin American issues , as acting head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The move surprised some at USAID ; Green ’ s deputy , Bonnie Glick , was passed over for the job of acting administrator in favor of Barsa in a break with tradition .
Green said he had no idea who might replace him as head of USAID after Barsa and had no conversations on that topic with the White House .
He praised Barsa as a “ quick study.
” He also offered a piece of advice for his successor : “ The advice I have is that we have a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust them and do everything we can to enhance their work and opportunities.
” Three people are in the running to replace Green as head of the agency , according to several current and former officials familiar with the matter .
This includes Jim Richardson , Pompeo ’ s former chief of staff during his time in Congress , as Devex first reported .
Richardson , who served at USAID earlier in the Trump administration , is now director of U.S. foreign assistance resources at the State Department .
Former Republican Rep. Ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Foreign Affairs Committee , is also in the running for the job , as is Florida Republican Rep. Ted Yoho .
“ The congressman has expressed interest in the position and thrown his name into the running for USAID administrator , ” a spokesman for Yoho told Foreign Policy .
The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment on the next USAID administrator nominee .
The outgoing USAID chief also dismissed the fears that the agency wouldn ’ t be able to handle the coronavirus crisis once he left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about USAID ’ s ability to respond , ” Green said .
He cited the agency ’ s newly established task force to tackle the coronavirus pandemic , which is led by Ken Staley , a doctor and veteran policy official who served as the administration ’ s global malaria coordinator beginning in 2018 .
Other veteran USAID officials said the agency needed a new full-fledged administrator as soon as possible , as fears mount over how the international aid agency can manage humanitarian crises and conflicts in the midst of a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reform USAID , including streamlining its bureaucracy and better aligning its budget and policy shops , would help the agency better respond to the current crisis .
“ It ’ s kind of rewiring the circuit board to make sure it works better and more efficiently , and that is not sexy , ” Konyndyk said .
“ Often the biggest frustrations are these kind of stupid structural or administration holdover structures that don ’ t make any sense anymore but are impossible to fix because no one ever wants to invest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I have a lot of respect for the fact that with the tenure [ Green ] had , he tried to focus on actually making the agency run better .
Not everybody comes in and tries to do that.
” The administrator position—which requires presidential nomination and Senate confirmation—now joins a raft of other key senior posts in the administration that are filled by lower-level officials in an acting capacity .
“ Timely and comprehensive nominations have been a challenge for this administration , ” said Lester Munson , a former senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the BGR Group , a government relations firm .
“ It ’ s critically important that USAID have leadership right now and strong leadership and that it be given the authority and power to take off and do what it can do very well , ” said Gayle Smith , a former USAID chief under Obama and head of the ONE Campaign , a global health advocacy organization .
“ On the one hand , it ’ s challenging that there ’ s no confirmed administrator .
On the other hand , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crises .
”

On April 10, U.S. President Donald Trump’s top foreign aid official stepped down from his post in a long-planned departure, saying the coronavirus pandemic shows how critical U.S. assistance to global health organizations has become, especially in the developing world.
On April 10, U.S. President Donald Trump’s top foreign aid official stepped down from his post in a long-planned departure, saying the coronavirus pandemic shows how critical U.S. assistance to global health organizations has become, especially in the developing world.
In an interview with Foreign Policy, Mark Green, the outgoing administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), raised alarms about how refugees and displaced populations will be affected by the pandemic and reflected on the Trump administration’s repeated attempts to cut funding for foreign aid.
“Less resources mean we can do less. It’s not magic, right? It’s not a mystery,” he said. “It’s a reminder to us, the challenges that we see, that the investments that we make, particularly health infrastructure investments, may not have immediate tangible payoffs, but they are an essential part of a long-term strategy.”
With Green’s departure, some in the aid community fear for USAID’s future, particularly as it grapples with how to respond to the second- and third-order knock-on effects from a pandemic that has infected more than 1.9 million people, killed over 119,000, and brought the global economy to its knees. While the virus has ravaged developed countries, many experts fear that the world’s least developed countries—where USAID conducts its most important humanitarian work—will be next.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Green said he was worried most about how the pandemic would impact people displaced by conflict worldwide. “We have 71 million or so people displaced around the world in nearly every corner of the world. People are in motion. People are vulnerable. And so, I think they are particularly vulnerable to some of the challenges from COVID-19,” he said. “Finding ways to be able to reach out and help those communities will be an essential part of not just getting the outbreak under control but ending the pandemic.”
Green was something of an anomaly in the Trump administration. For over two and a half years, he managed the multibillion-dollar foreign aid agency without the level of scandal or political drama that came to dominate other agencies. He outlasted a secretary of state, defense secretary, and multiple national security advisors, along with a raft of other top administration officials who were sacked or resigned amid scandal and controversy.
He took over an agency that, at least on paper, looked like a prime target for the cadre of anti-establishment populist insurgents that helped propel Trump to the White House; “America First” seemed entirely at odds with the long-standing U.S. practice of delivering billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries.
To the surprise of many veteran foreign aid experts, USAID has emerged relatively unscathed—at least compared with other federal agencies that were dragged into scandals or even the president’s impeachment trial. Green oversaw a reorganization of the agency to streamline its bureaucracies—a stark contrast to the State Department’s fumbling attempts to enact its own reforms—and bipartisan pushback in Congress fended off yearly proposals to substantially slash USAID’s budget.
All the while, Green pulled off the increasingly rare feat of maintaining good ties with both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill without drawing the ire of a famously mercurial and combative president. Green, a former Wisconsin Republican congressman and U.S. ambassador to Tanzania, was no stranger to the world of international aid when he was tapped to be Trump’s USAID chief.
He also balanced ties between the aid community—chock-full of Trump critics—and powerful figures in the administration who repeatedly tried to gut funding for diplomacy and foreign aid, according to six current and former USAID officials.
“He protected and fought really hard for USAID budgets internally,” said Nicole Widdersheim, a former National Security Council staffer and USAID official.
“Honestly I think, compared to what the baseline expectations were for what would happen to USAID under a Trump administration, what Mark’s been able to achieve was really a best-case scenario,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior USAID official under President Barack Obama now at the Center for Global Development.
Green, who had been in the job since August 2017, did not offer any rebukes or veiled swipes at the president during the interview. He said the pandemic underscored the importance of U.S. foreign aid for global health programs—though the Trump administration proposed cuts to global health programs in its federal budget proposal released this year.
“I think the crisis that we’re all facing right now should serve as a reminder that these kinds of investments are important—not just for our partners, they’re important for us,” Green said.
Green’s tenure at USAID had its rocky and politically perilous moments. The administration tried to pare down U.S. foreign aid through bureaucratic maneuvering when the aid cuts were rejected by Congress. USAID also caught criticism from international aid organizations focused on women’s rights for its hard-line stance on sexual and reproductive health, arguing that the administration’s anti-abortion stances hampered international efforts to improve women’s health, particularly in developing countries. Senior administration officials have rejected these criticisms.
USAID also faced political pressure and a controversy in 2018, when Vice President Mike Pence’s office pressured the agency to divert aid funds to Christian minorities in Iraq. USAID staffers felt that the administration’s efforts to influence apolitical procurement processes could violate constitutional restrictions on favoring one religion over another and could also inflame sectarian tensions in Iraq, as ProPublica reported.
One top career USAID official, Maria Longi, was reportedly removed from her post following pressure from Pence’s office. The move angered many rank-and-file USAID officers, who felt she was being unfairly scapegoated, according to several current and former USAID officials.
Green declined to comment on Longi’s case but lauded the work USAID had done in Iraq. “I would never comment on internal personnel matters of this agency,” he said. “What I can say is I’m a big fan of the work that we’re doing in places like northern Iraq. And I think that we have crafted tools and initiatives that are helping very vulnerable communities respond and rebuild after suffering the worst kinds of assaults and discrimination and persecution by violent extremists, most notably ISIS.”
Some of the administration’s sharpest critics still offered praise for Green as he departed his post, including Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has publicly sparred with Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the past. “Faced by an Administration that has relentlessly sought to cut foreign development and humanitarian relief programs it incorrectly views as charity, I sincerely appreciated Administrator Green’s commitment to defending programs and funds that are proven to advance U.S. national security, help lift up the world’s most impoverished, and build resilient and prosperous communities that in turn promote global stability,” Menendez said in a statement after Green’s departure was announced.
Green will become the new president of Arizona State University’s McCain Institute for International Leadership, named after late Republican Sen. John McCain. The former president of the institute, Kurt Volker, was Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and stepped down following the impeachment investigation.
Trump has appointed John Barsa, a well-connected Trump appointee in USAID overseeing Latin American issues, as acting head of the agency with Green’s departure. The move surprised some at USAID; Green’s deputy, Bonnie Glick, was passed over for the job of acting administrator in favor of Barsa in a break with tradition.
Green said he had no idea who might replace him as head of USAID after Barsa and had no conversations on that topic with the White House.
He praised Barsa as a “quick study.” He also offered a piece of advice for his successor: “The advice I have is that we have a great team of professionals, and we should trust them and do everything we can to enhance their work and opportunities.”
Three people are in the running to replace Green as head of the agency, according to several current and former officials familiar with the matter. This includes Jim Richardson, Pompeo’s former chief of staff during his time in Congress, as Devex first reported. Richardson, who served at USAID earlier in the Trump administration, is now director of U.S. foreign assistance resources at the State Department. Former Republican Rep. Ed Royce, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is also in the running for the job, as is Florida Republican Rep. Ted Yoho. “The congressman has expressed interest in the position and thrown his name into the running for USAID administrator,” a spokesman for Yoho told Foreign Policy. The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment on the next USAID administrator nominee.
The outgoing USAID chief also dismissed the fears that the agency wouldn’t be able to handle the coronavirus crisis once he left. “I don’t worry about USAID’s ability to respond,” Green said. He cited the agency’s newly established task force to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, which is led by Ken Staley, a doctor and veteran policy official who served as the administration’s global malaria coordinator beginning in 2018.
Other veteran USAID officials said the agency needed a new full-fledged administrator as soon as possible, as fears mount over how the international aid agency can manage humanitarian crises and conflicts in the midst of a pandemic.
They said Green’s push to reform USAID, including streamlining its bureaucracy and better aligning its budget and policy shops, would help the agency better respond to the current crisis.
“It’s kind of rewiring the circuit board to make sure it works better and more efficiently, and that is not sexy,” Konyndyk said. “Often the biggest frustrations are these kind of stupid structural or administration holdover structures that don’t make any sense anymore but are impossible to fix because no one ever wants to invest the political capital in fixing them.
“I have a lot of respect for the fact that with the tenure [Green] had, he tried to focus on actually making the agency run better. Not everybody comes in and tries to do that.”
The administrator position—which requires presidential nomination and Senate confirmation—now joins a raft of other key senior posts in the administration that are filled by lower-level officials in an acting capacity. “Timely and comprehensive nominations have been a challenge for this administration,” said Lester Munson, a former senior Senate staffer and USAID official now at the BGR Group, a government relations firm.
“It’s critically important that USAID have leadership right now and strong leadership and that it be given the authority and power to take off and do what it can do very well,” said Gayle Smith, a former USAID chief under Obama and head of the ONE Campaign, a global health advocacy organization. “On the one hand, it’s challenging that there’s no confirmed administrator. On the other hand, this agency knows how to deal with complex crises.”


foreignpolicy--2020-04-13--Don’t Let Leaders Use the Coronavirus as an Excuse to Violate Civil Liberties

Don ’ t Let Leaders Use the Coronavirus as an Excuse to Violate Civil Liberties As a pandemic sweeps the globe , it is carrying with it a related and equally dangerous threat to free speech and open discourse .
The firing of Navy Capt .
Brett Crozier for the crime of raising alarm bells over the spreading viral risk to the sailors under his command on the USS Theodore Roosevelt is among the most vivid examples of a metastasizing trend of silencing and punishing speech , ostensibly to protect public health and order .
Emergencies have always been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of keeping secrets , suppressing disloyalty , and aiding the war effort .
While extreme measures may now seem warranted and urgent to help halt the contagion , a series of trends afoot pose serious risks for open expression , portending threats that are likely to endure long after the lockdown has lifted .
And many of these measures have less to do with public health than they do with protecting political and institutional reputations , and with trying to retake control of the devastating narrative of a pandemic that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparation , and mobilization .
The fact that Crozier ’ s disclosures were an act of conscience was made plain as hundreds of sailors cheered and chanted while he left his ship for the last time , applauding him for putting his career on the line to speak out for their safety .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
Unfortunately , while many of these trends tend to arise in authoritarian settings , others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States .
The suppression of speech impedes containment of the pandemic , obscures understanding of the crisis and how to prevent its recurrence , impairs the effort to hold accountable the officials who are responsible for managing the threat , and poses a lasting risk to civic health.Emergencies have always been used as justifications to curb free speech .
Back in January , the disciplining of Chinese medical doctor Li Wenliang for trying to alert fellow medical professionals to alarming symptoms he was seeing in patients was the first sign that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech as a way to deny and deflect blame .
Since then , an array of threats to free speech has emerged , including both reactive and opportunistic steps taken by officials .
Among the most egregious , visible , and poignant attacks on speech have targeted individual truth-tellers .
The tragic story of Li , who died of the virus in early February , was just the first in a pattern of official efforts to discredit , block , and punish those who reveal facts and perspectives that authorities prefer to obscure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham , Washington , fired doctor Ming Lin after he posted on Facebook about gaps in protective equipment and precautions .
The New York Times has reported that doctor Deena Elkafrawi was reprimanded by Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center in the Bronx after she was quoted in print saying she feared going to work .
Even New York University ’ s Langone Medical Center has issued a stern warning to its doctors that they could face termination if they speak to the press .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only “ positive and uplifting messages.
” Professional strictures and institutional discipline have repeatedly been invoked to silence and punish experts who have found raising their concerns through ordinary channels to be fruitless .
With professionals under pressure to keep their heads down and their mouths closed , journalists are playing an essential role in ferreting out the facts and holding officials ’ feet to the fire .
Yet despite the doggedness of reporters who keep at it amid dangers , the pandemic has witnessed a systemic campaign to denigrate credible news outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
The daily spectacle of U.S. President Donald Trump calling journalists nasty and incompetent and disparaging their credentials is hardly new , but has been exacerbated since the president now comes to the podium daily and insults those who raise topics he ’ d rather not confront .
The role of professional , unflinching journalists in covering the pandemic is particularly important in light of Trump ’ s persistence in spreading misinformation .
In his daily press briefings , Trump is elevating speculation , opinion , and falsehoods .
Historically , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was among the weightiest , most carefully vetted communications emanating from any source in the world .
But Trump uses his pulpit to tout unproven treatments , downplay the severity of the crisis , and spread falsehoods such as the notion that rail and air passengers are being medically screened , while trumpeting his crisis response effort as successful in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence .
Though many networks have rightly taken him off the air , his relentless propaganda nonetheless drags down public discourse and makes it impossible for citizens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s threats , insults , and evasions of the media have emboldened and inspired leaders globally to hem in critical media .
Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel ’ s famous admonition never to let “ a serious crisis to go to waste ” has been taken to heart by authoritarians around the world .
On March 8 , Azerbaijani journalist Tezekhan Mirelemli started live broadcasting from the D18 opposition movement ’ s Baku office as police officers ordered the office closed , saying that the activists could not “ gather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading the novel coronavirus .
There were only four people in the office at the time and officers refused to provide a court order or other documentation for the closure .
Meanwhile , Iran has banned the distribution of all print newspapers , purportedly on the grounds that delivering them could spread the virus .
In Hungary , Prime Minister Viktor Orban has arrogated for himself the power to rule by decree and implemented new restrictions on journalism that the government deems harmful to the coronavirus response .
Sources are drying up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting for fear of imprisonment , impairing coverage of the pandemic ’ s spread .
The Philippines has threatened imprisonment for journalists who report what the government deems to be “ false information.
” Thailand has authorized prison terms of up to five years for reporting what the government deems “ is untrue and may cause public fear.
” Egypt ’ s government has expelled a Guardian correspondent and warned a New York Times journalist based on stories that cast doubt on official counts of COVID-19 cases .
China expelled reporters from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the New York Times just as the true story of its mishandling of the pandemic was beginning to emerge .
Voices that have traditionally spoken out against naked efforts to smother critical coverage—such as the U.S. government and the European Union—have been mostly silent , mired in their own crisis responses and guilty of their own lapses .
The dangers the pandemic poses to the role of the press go beyond intentional abuses of power by rulers seeking to control information and burnish their images .
In the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the imperative of robust local news coverage in cities and towns , providing citizens with vital information about trend lines , quarantines , and lockdowns , and about how to access essential services .
Several papers have removed paywalls on COVID-19 coverage , recognizing that it represents an essential public service .
But many of the local media outlets accustomed to providing this civic good have disappeared or are on their last legs , struggling with advertising and print subscription-based business models that have been withering for years .
With the collapse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retail and restaurants ’ dwindling advertising revenue has often dried up completely .
Gannett , which owns some 260 U.S. daily papers , has announced pay cuts and furloughs .
Other outlets , including the Buffalo News , Tampa Bay Times , St. Louis Post-Dispatch , and many more , are implementing reductions in publication schedules and staffing .
While the ravaging of local news is not the fault of officials , they can do something to help address it by ensuring that stimulus dollars can help keep these essential outlets alive.The dangers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the press go beyond intentional abuses of power by rulers .
The impact of COVID-19 on free speech also encompasses highly personal and private information .
The pandemic has brought into public view extraordinary methods of mass surveillance that governments hold at their fingertips , and which can be genuinely useful in helping to curb the spread of the virus .
Technologies that can track who has come into contact with an infected person , where they have traveled , and who carries risk factors can help prioritize individuals for treatment or designate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if used correctly , these same technologies also have the potential to screen communications to see who is searching online for what , or to apply racial or other forms of profiling to assign risk factors to individuals .
Such technologies could also impede individuals ’ freedom to research certain topics or visit particular places for fear that they might be marked as representing a health risk and subjected to constraints on their freedom as a result .
With companies now collaborating with governments to collect , analyze , and operationalize masses of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and contacts , the already slender protections for our online privacy are likely to shrivel .
Ambitious , app-based efforts to scale contact-tracing in the context of the pandemic could readily be repurposed by governments to track individuals ’ contacts with dissidents , political allies , and journalists .
Knowledge that the government has a way to track these types of associations would impair freedom of speech and association as well as chill political organizing efforts .
The potent technologies powering these apps could tip off governments to where we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and what we ’ ve been talking about in ways that make us nostalgic for the analog police states of yore .
And not all the risks to free speech emanate from government .
Internet platforms have mostly earned praise for their vociferous efforts to counter what the World Health Organization ( WHO ) has dubbed an infodemic—the explosive spread of virus-related misinformation and conspiracy theories , some of which can result in delayed or flawed treatments , or even death .
With companies now collaborating with governments to collect , analyze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements , temperatures , and contacts , the already slender protections for our online privacy are likely to shrivel .
Google , Facebook , Twitter , and their subsidiaries have taken aggressive measures to remove and demote false virus-related content , as well as to amplify the visibility of reliable information provided by credible sources such as the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
At times , these efforts have gone too far , including when artificial intelligence powering Facebook ’ s algorithms began removing posts about how to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
Because the platforms offer next to nothing by way of notification and appeals processes with respect to content that is taken down , there is a risk that amid valiant efforts to curb falsehoods and deceit , a good deal of legitimate content will disappear without speakers even knowing that their voices have been silenced .
Moreover , the powerful demonstration in recent weeks of online platforms ’ ability to curb the flow of misinformation will likely inspire governments to demand that similarly aggressive measures be applied in future to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissident groups that a government deems subversive .
The current conduct of governments could have lasting ramifications .
As the immediate crisis ( hopefully ) subsides and attention turns to restarting the economy , there is no guarantee that public or political pressure will be powerful enough to ensure that pandemic-driven crackdowns on civil liberties don ’ t outlast the contagion .
Moreover , there is a risk that aspects of the battle against COVID-19 become a new “ forever war , ” with privacy violations and censorship becoming semipermanent on the grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successors , can never be fully vanquished .

As a pandemic sweeps the globe, it is carrying with it a related and equally dangerous threat to free speech and open discourse. The firing of Navy Capt. Brett Crozier for the crime of raising alarm bells over the spreading viral risk to the sailors under his command on the USS Theodore Roosevelt is among the most vivid examples of a metastasizing trend of silencing and punishing speech, ostensibly to protect public health and order.
As a pandemic sweeps the globe, it is carrying with it a related and equally dangerous threat to free speech and open discourse. The firing of Navy Capt. Brett Crozier for the crime of raising alarm bells over the spreading viral risk to the sailors under his command on the USS Theodore Roosevelt is among the most vivid examples of a metastasizing trend of silencing and punishing speech, ostensibly to protect public health and order.
Emergencies have always been used as justifications to curb free speech in the name of keeping secrets, suppressing disloyalty, and aiding the war effort. While extreme measures may now seem warranted and urgent to help halt the contagion, a series of trends afoot pose serious risks for open expression, portending threats that are likely to endure long after the lockdown has lifted.
And many of these measures have less to do with public health than they do with protecting political and institutional reputations, and with trying to retake control of the devastating narrative of a pandemic that has fed on human failures of anticipation, preparation, and mobilization. The fact that Crozier’s disclosures were an act of conscience was made plain as hundreds of sailors cheered and chanted while he left his ship for the last time, applauding him for putting his career on the line to speak out for their safety.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
Unfortunately, while many of these trends tend to arise in authoritarian settings, others are taking root in democracies, including the United States. The suppression of speech impedes containment of the pandemic, obscures understanding of the crisis and how to prevent its recurrence, impairs the effort to hold accountable the officials who are responsible for managing the threat, and poses a lasting risk to civic health.Emergencies have always been used as justifications to curb free speech.
Back in January, the disciplining of Chinese medical doctor Li Wenliang for trying to alert fellow medical professionals to alarming symptoms he was seeing in patients was the first sign that amid this crisis, authorities would muzzle speech as a way to deny and deflect blame. Since then, an array of threats to free speech has emerged, including both reactive and opportunistic steps taken by officials.
Among the most egregious, visible, and poignant attacks on speech have targeted individual truth-tellers. The tragic story of Li, who died of the virus in early February, was just the first in a pattern of official efforts to discredit, block, and punish those who reveal facts and perspectives that authorities prefer to obscure from public view.
In late March, PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Washington, fired doctor Ming Lin after he posted on Facebook about gaps in protective equipment and precautions. The New York Times has reported that doctor Deena Elkafrawi was reprimanded by Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center in the Bronx after she was quoted in print saying she feared going to work. Even New York University’s Langone Medical Center has issued a stern warning to its doctors that they could face termination if they speak to the press. The hospital has urged its staff to post only “positive and uplifting messages.” Professional strictures and institutional discipline have repeatedly been invoked to silence and punish experts who have found raising their concerns through ordinary channels to be fruitless.
With professionals under pressure to keep their heads down and their mouths closed, journalists are playing an essential role in ferreting out the facts and holding officials’ feet to the fire. Yet despite the doggedness of reporters who keep at it amid dangers, the pandemic has witnessed a systemic campaign to denigrate credible news outlets for factual journalism with respect to the crisis. The daily spectacle of U.S. President Donald Trump calling journalists nasty and incompetent and disparaging their credentials is hardly new, but has been exacerbated since the president now comes to the podium daily and insults those who raise topics he’d rather not confront.
The role of professional, unflinching journalists in covering the pandemic is particularly important in light of Trump’s persistence in spreading misinformation. In his daily press briefings, Trump is elevating speculation, opinion, and falsehoods. Historically, a presidential pronouncement from a White House podium was among the weightiest, most carefully vetted communications emanating from any source in the world.
But Trump uses his pulpit to tout unproven treatments, downplay the severity of the crisis, and spread falsehoods such as the notion that rail and air passengers are being medically screened, while trumpeting his crisis response effort as successful in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Though many networks have rightly taken him off the air, his relentless propaganda nonetheless drags down public discourse and makes it impossible for citizens to know what to believe.
Trump’s threats, insults, and evasions of the media have emboldened and inspired leaders globally to hem in critical media. Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s famous admonition never to let “a serious crisis to go to waste” has been taken to heart by authoritarians around the world.
On March 8, Azerbaijani journalist Tezekhan Mirelemli started live broadcasting from the D18 opposition movement’s Baku office as police officers ordered the office closed, saying that the activists could not “gather en masse” due to fears of spreading the novel coronavirus. There were only four people in the office at the time and officers refused to provide a court order or other documentation for the closure.
Meanwhile, Iran has banned the distribution of all print newspapers, purportedly on the grounds that delivering them could spread the virus. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has arrogated for himself the power to rule by decree and implemented new restrictions on journalism that the government deems harmful to the coronavirus response. Sources are drying up and journalists in Hungary are holding back on reporting for fear of imprisonment, impairing coverage of the pandemic’s spread.
The Philippines has threatened imprisonment for journalists who report what the government deems to be “false information.” Thailand has authorized prison terms of up to five years for reporting what the government deems “is untrue and may cause public fear.” Egypt’s government has expelled a Guardian correspondent and warned a New York Times journalist based on stories that cast doubt on official counts of COVID-19 cases.
China expelled reporters from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times just as the true story of its mishandling of the pandemic was beginning to emerge. Voices that have traditionally spoken out against naked efforts to smother critical coverage—such as the U.S. government and the European Union—have been mostly silent, mired in their own crisis responses and guilty of their own lapses.
The dangers the pandemic poses to the role of the press go beyond intentional abuses of power by rulers seeking to control information and burnish their images. In the United States, community spread of the coronavirus has underscored the imperative of robust local news coverage in cities and towns, providing citizens with vital information about trend lines, quarantines, and lockdowns, and about how to access essential services. Several papers have removed paywalls on COVID-19 coverage, recognizing that it represents an essential public service.
But many of the local media outlets accustomed to providing this civic good have disappeared or are on their last legs, struggling with advertising and print subscription-based business models that have been withering for years. With the collapse of local events due to social distancing, retail and restaurants’ dwindling advertising revenue has often dried up completely. Gannett, which owns some 260 U.S. daily papers, has announced pay cuts and furloughs. Other outlets, including the Buffalo News, Tampa Bay Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and many more, are implementing reductions in publication schedules and staffing. While the ravaging of local news is not the fault of officials, they can do something to help address it by ensuring that stimulus dollars can help keep these essential outlets alive.The dangers the pandemic poses to the role of the press go beyond intentional abuses of power by rulers.
The impact of COVID-19 on free speech also encompasses highly personal and private information. The pandemic has brought into public view extraordinary methods of mass surveillance that governments hold at their fingertips, and which can be genuinely useful in helping to curb the spread of the virus. Technologies that can track who has come into contact with an infected person, where they have traveled, and who carries risk factors can help prioritize individuals for treatment or designate them for quarantine.
While potentially lifesaving if used correctly, these same technologies also have the potential to screen communications to see who is searching online for what, or to apply racial or other forms of profiling to assign risk factors to individuals. Such technologies could also impede individuals’ freedom to research certain topics or visit particular places for fear that they might be marked as representing a health risk and subjected to constraints on their freedom as a result.
With companies now collaborating with governments to collect, analyze, and operationalize masses of data on individuals’ movements, temperatures, and contacts, the already slender protections for our online privacy are likely to shrivel. Ambitious, app-based efforts to scale contact-tracing in the context of the pandemic could readily be repurposed by governments to track individuals’ contacts with dissidents, political allies, and journalists.
Knowledge that the government has a way to track these types of associations would impair freedom of speech and association as well as chill political organizing efforts. The potent technologies powering these apps could tip off governments to where we’ve been, whom we’ve seen, and what we’ve been talking about in ways that make us nostalgic for the analog police states of yore.
And not all the risks to free speech emanate from government. Internet platforms have mostly earned praise for their vociferous efforts to counter what the World Health Organization (WHO) has dubbed an infodemic—the explosive spread of virus-related misinformation and conspiracy theories, some of which can result in delayed or flawed treatments, or even death.
With companies now collaborating with governments to collect, analyze, and use data on individuals’ movements, temperatures, and contacts, the already slender protections for our online privacy are likely to shrivel.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and their subsidiaries have taken aggressive measures to remove and demote false virus-related content, as well as to amplify the visibility of reliable information provided by credible sources such as the WHO and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At times, these efforts have gone too far, including when artificial intelligence powering Facebook’s algorithms began removing posts about how to make a face mask and credible reporting on the virus.
Because the platforms offer next to nothing by way of notification and appeals processes with respect to content that is taken down, there is a risk that amid valiant efforts to curb falsehoods and deceit, a good deal of legitimate content will disappear without speakers even knowing that their voices have been silenced. Moreover, the powerful demonstration in recent weeks of online platforms’ ability to curb the flow of misinformation will likely inspire governments to demand that similarly aggressive measures be applied in future to disfavored content, for example relating to dissident groups that a government deems subversive.
The current conduct of governments could have lasting ramifications. As the immediate crisis (hopefully) subsides and attention turns to restarting the economy, there is no guarantee that public or political pressure will be powerful enough to ensure that pandemic-driven crackdowns on civil liberties don’t outlast the contagion. Moreover, there is a risk that aspects of the battle against COVID-19 become a new “forever war,” with privacy violations and censorship becoming semipermanent on the grounds that the virus, and its inevitable successors, can never be fully vanquished.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-13--South Korea Holds World’s First National Coronavirus Election

SEOUL—A woman briskly paces up and down the little side alley in downtown Seoul while sporadically shouting reminders through her mask for people to space out more .
People in line are busy snapping selfies in front of a poster with the words “ Sogong Early Voting Station , ” but they do give a quick glance around and shuffle slightly when they ’ re yelled at .
They ’ re here to perform their civic duty of voting in South Korea ’ s parliamentary election , where all 300 seats are up for grabs .
But they also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing .
South Korea is the first country to have a general election in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic , currently enveloping the world .
As the crowd approaches the doorway leading into the room with voting booths , an assistant takes their temperatures with a laser thermometer , and any unmasked faces will be turned away .
If one were to have a fever , they ’ d be escorted to a designated area where they could vote separately .
All voters are given disposable plastic gloves before entering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanitizer is offered on the way out .
The threat of the coronavirus hangs in the air and lingers in voters ’ minds .
“ Of course !
And my right to choose the right person is very important , especially in this situation , you know , with the coronavirus , ” Lee Dong-hue , a young man working in the area , said after leaving the voting station .
Officially , the election is on April 15 , but South Korea has conducted two days of early voting at elections since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to show up on election day .
Some experts were concerned that the virus would keep people from voting , but it ’ s rather the opposite it seems .
Over a quarter of eligible voters—26.7 percent—have already made their mark , doubling the early voting turnout compared with the last parliamentary election in 2016 , which was at 12.2 percent .
The pandemic has perhaps shown people how important leadership can be in case of chaos .
And this is a bit of a conundrum for the opposition : It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saved lives by handling the situation well , but it is a bad thing , though , for the opposition , now at a disadvantage in the polls .
“ The opposition party considered the spread of the coronavirus to be a negative factor for the ruling party at a superficial and general level and continued to criticize the ruling party , ” said Choi Young-il , a political commentator and adjunct professor at Kyung Hee Cyber University .
It worked in the beginning .
Focusing on the faults , failures , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swing voters .
“ At the height of the virus epidemic , some people sympathized with the criticism , especially when it came to why the government didn ’ t ban [ people coming in from ] China .
If the general election had been a month earlier , the ruling party would have been defeated , ” Choi said .
It worked only in the beginning , though .
Solely focusing on the faults proved fruitless as the government ’ s efforts turned out to be effective .
“ The opposition ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly earned domestic and foreign accolades for its coronavirus response , ” Henri Féron , a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy focusing on the Koreas , wrote in an email .
“ The ruling Democratic Party in turn capitalized on these accolades by framing the elections as a referendum on the response , for instance by choosing ‘ We will definitely win the corona war ’ as an election slogan , ” he added .
South Korean President Moon Jae-in is also experiencing a surge in voter confidence .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent , according to Realmeter , a Korean analytics company , an almost 10-point increase compared with the end of February and beginning of March , when the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases exploded in the city of Daegu .
Opinion polls can not be published in the week leading up to an election in South Korea , so how the parliament will look Thursday morning will not be known until the ballots have been counted .
But it appears that the Democratic Party has a lead—for example , North and South Jeolla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest turnout at the early voting stage .
The opposition failed in what Choi calls the “ three points to be successful opposition.
” The first is criticizing the government ’ s shortcomings , the second is providing an alternative to it , and the third is cooperating with the government when it is doing a good job .
“ It should be balanced—that ’ s how you get votes—but they didn ’ t do two or three .
They didn ’ t give an alternative .
Citizens want to know if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new government .
They didn ’ t cooperate , in a crisis people want to see unity , ” Choi said .
“ People only saw conflict.
” Some opposition members have supplied an alternative .
Ahn Cheol-soo , the leader of the newly founded People ’ s Party and former medical doctor , volunteered and went to Daegu during the outbreak to help the medical staff there .
A photo of him in sweat-drenched medical garb went viral , and his party saw a surge in the polls .
But it didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to his base in Seoul , so did his ratings return to their base levels .
And as it became clear that the government was effective and criticizing it was not , other campaign stunts were adopted , such as going out in an official ’ s district and disinfecting public spaces—parks , playgrounds , benches , anything that could be sprayed down with an antiviral solution and cleaned up .
The original support the opposition had as the country was taken by surprise over the virus has quickly vanished .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government , it failed to provide the people with an alternative , and when the government succeeded , it failed to play along .
“ I think the present government is doing very well , and I voted for a candidate who supports the government , who has similar views and plans [ as the government ] , ” Lee , the young voter , said before hurrying back to work .

SEOUL—A woman briskly paces up and down the little side alley in downtown Seoul while sporadically shouting reminders through her mask for people to space out more. People in line are busy snapping selfies in front of a poster with the words “Sogong Early Voting Station,” but they do give a quick glance around and shuffle slightly when they’re yelled at.
SEOUL—A woman briskly paces up and down the little side alley in downtown Seoul while sporadically shouting reminders through her mask for people to space out more. People in line are busy snapping selfies in front of a poster with the words “Sogong Early Voting Station,” but they do give a quick glance around and shuffle slightly when they’re yelled at.
They’re here to perform their civic duty of voting in South Korea’s parliamentary election, where all 300 seats are up for grabs. But they also have to perform their civic duty of social distancing. South Korea is the first country to have a general election in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic, currently enveloping the world.
As the crowd approaches the doorway leading into the room with voting booths, an assistant takes their temperatures with a laser thermometer, and any unmasked faces will be turned away. If one were to have a fever, they’d be escorted to a designated area where they could vote separately.
All voters are given disposable plastic gloves before entering the booth to cast their ballots. Hand sanitizer is offered on the way out. The threat of the coronavirus hangs in the air and lingers in voters’ minds.
“Of course! And my right to choose the right person is very important, especially in this situation, you know, with the coronavirus,” Lee Dong-hue, a young man working in the area, said after leaving the voting station.
Officially, the election is on April 15, but South Korea has conducted two days of early voting at elections since 2013 to boost turnout rates for people unable to show up on election day. Some experts were concerned that the virus would keep people from voting, but it’s rather the opposite it seems.
Over a quarter of eligible voters—26.7 percent—have already made their mark, doubling the early voting turnout compared with the last parliamentary election in 2016, which was at 12.2 percent. The pandemic has perhaps shown people how important leadership can be in case of chaos.
And this is a bit of a conundrum for the opposition: It is undoubtedly a good thing that the government saved lives by handling the situation well, but it is a bad thing, though, for the opposition, now at a disadvantage in the polls.
“The opposition party considered the spread of the coronavirus to be a negative factor for the ruling party at a superficial and general level and continued to criticize the ruling party,” said Choi Young-il, a political commentator and adjunct professor at Kyung Hee Cyber University.
It worked in the beginning. Focusing on the faults, failures, and fatalities proved the opposition right and swayed swing voters.
“At the height of the virus epidemic, some people sympathized with the criticism, especially when it came to why the government didn’t ban [people coming in from] China. If the general election had been a month earlier, the ruling party would have been defeated,” Choi said.
It worked only in the beginning, though. Solely focusing on the faults proved fruitless as the government’s efforts turned out to be effective.
“The opposition’s strategy eventually backfired as the government increasingly earned domestic and foreign accolades for its coronavirus response,” Henri Féron, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy focusing on the Koreas, wrote in an email.
“The ruling Democratic Party in turn capitalized on these accolades by framing the elections as a referendum on the response, for instance by choosing ‘We will definitely win the corona war’ as an election slogan,” he added.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in is also experiencing a surge in voter confidence. His approval rating has increased dramatically to 54.4 percent, according to Realmeter, a Korean analytics company, an almost 10-point increase compared with the end of February and beginning of March, when the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases exploded in the city of Daegu.
Opinion polls cannot be published in the week leading up to an election in South Korea, so how the parliament will look Thursday morning will not be known until the ballots have been counted. But it appears that the Democratic Party has a lead—for example, North and South Jeolla provinces, Democratic strongholds, have seen the largest turnout at the early voting stage.
The opposition failed in what Choi calls the “three points to be successful opposition.” The first is criticizing the government’s shortcomings, the second is providing an alternative to it, and the third is cooperating with the government when it is doing a good job.
“It should be balanced—that’s how you get votes—but they didn’t do two or three. They didn’t give an alternative. Citizens want to know if they’ll be better with a new government. They didn’t cooperate, in a crisis people want to see unity,” Choi said. “People only saw conflict.”
Some opposition members have supplied an alternative. Ahn Cheol-soo, the leader of the newly founded People’s Party and former medical doctor, volunteered and went to Daegu during the outbreak to help the medical staff there. A photo of him in sweat-drenched medical garb went viral, and his party saw a surge in the polls. But it didn’t last, and as he returned to his base in Seoul, so did his ratings return to their base levels.
And as it became clear that the government was effective and criticizing it was not, other campaign stunts were adopted, such as going out in an official’s district and disinfecting public spaces—parks, playgrounds, benches, anything that could be sprayed down with an antiviral solution and cleaned up.
The original support the opposition had as the country was taken by surprise over the virus has quickly vanished. And because it doubled down on the failures of the government, it failed to provide the people with an alternative, and when the government succeeded, it failed to play along.
“I think the present government is doing very well, and I voted for a candidate who supports the government, who has similar views and plans [as the government],” Lee, the young voter, said before hurrying back to work.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-13--Why Politicians Ignore Disaster Predictions

Disasters are often painted as events that come out of nowhere .
But most disasters are predicted—at least by somebody .
Disaster managers and researchers know what the biggest risks are and can imagine how they will play out .
In part this is because many people , as you may have noticed , are really good at imagining bad things happening in excruciating detail .
But more importantly , there are also large numbers of people who study seismology , epidemiology , meteorology , sociology , and other fields that deal with risk and disaster .
And it shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been imagined and modeled with striking accuracy long before it appears .
Take the example of Hurricane Pam , a simulation exercise carried out in New Orleans almost exactly a year before Hurricane Katrina , which included most of the issues that the real storm would cause .
Or this 2016 project by the Texas Tribune and ProPublica predicting the devastation that would be caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 .
Or the 2018 Palu earthquake .
It ’ s true for pandemics , too .
Scientists have known for at least a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , about the risks of disease in a globalized world where a virus can leap from a village market to a metropolis on the other side of the world in days .
The SARS and swine flu outbreaks reminded governments , nongovernmental organizations , and corporations to update their planning for managing and surviving epidemics .
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had a series of exercises on a pandemic scenario earlier in 2019 .
So if we know what to worry about , why are so many countries seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The first important answer is that many of these predictions do help— especially in the countries that take them seriously .
The experience learned from SARS , MERS , and the swine flu left East Asian countries in general more capable of dealing with the coronavirus .
The Hurricane Pam simulation demonstrated an awareness of what a hurricane would do to New Orleans , but it also highlighted problem areas that officials hadn ’ t considered , such as the difficulty of evacuating people who didn ’ t own cars .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate report on Katrina found that although the plans being developed from the Hurricane Pam exercise weren ’ t finished in time for Katrina , “ some officials took the initiative to use concepts developed in the drafts , with mixed success.
” The problem is not in knowing what to do , it ’ s in doing it—and in the willingness to pay for it before it ’ s too late .
Mostly , as the Hurricane Katrina example shows , it ’ s doing it in a timely fashion .
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probable disasters—where they will happen , what they will do , whom they will affect the most—what we don ’ t know is when .
We predict disasters in poorly understood probabilities or vague ranges on the order of decades or even centuries , such as the “ 500-year flood.
” That uncertainty has led decision-makers to postpone disaster preparedness , which studies have shown to have a significant return on investment in saved time and money during responses .
Leaders can somewhat rationally hope that a predicted disaster will hit during someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budgets toward more visible objectives .
It ’ s not just money , however .
For many disasters , effectively preparing means making unpopular decisions : telling people they can ’ t build or live in flood plains or on the coast , prioritizing wetlands over industry , restricting travel .
An emergency manager from Kesennuma , Japan , where oil from fuel tanks at the port caused an immensely destructive fire in the wake of the 2011 tsunami , told me that not only had his jurisdiction ignored this risk , oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Japan .
Knowing how dangerous it was , the government was still reluctant to restrict that economic activity .
This is nowhere more obvious than in that epitome of predicted disasters , climate change .
We know what we need to do , or stop doing , to address the threat , and yet we keep pretending that it ’ s not our problem , that it can be left for later , that someone else—whether in another country or another generation—can make those necessary changes and pay the costs , in dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that $ 1 spent on preparedness mitigates an average of $ 15 worth of damage later — but that voters will reward spending on disaster mitigation , but not disaster preparedness .
That ’ s happened with wave after wave of the COVID-19 pandemic : Even after seeing it happening elsewhere , even with the rational understanding that countries needed to act before they felt the impact , there were still delays and reluctance .
Our reluctance to believe in disasters is worsened by the way we treat each one , after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government reports and media accounts alike are studded with words like unprecedented and unimaginable .
Those reports supposedly have the purpose of learning from mistakes ( and , more rarely , successes ) to ensure that future disasters are handled more effectively .
But , like simulation exercises and probabilities , those carefully documented lessons are rarely given the funding or political attention to be put into practice .
After a disaster people are more likely to heave a sigh of relief and slide back into normalcy , forgetting those whose lives continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And yet , the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has found that “ general acceptance for disaster risk reduction and recovery planning peaks after the disaster.
” That is the brief window when we are convinced that devastating upheaval is possible and could happen to us .
We know that disasters will happen .
We even know how and where .
Let ’ s demand that our political leaders start putting that knowledge to good use .

Disasters are often painted as events that come out of nowhere. But most disasters are predicted—at least by somebody. Disaster managers and researchers know what the biggest risks are and can imagine how they will play out. In part this is because many people, as you may have noticed, are really good at imagining bad things happening in excruciating detail. But more importantly, there are also large numbers of people who study seismology, epidemiology, meteorology, sociology, and other fields that deal with risk and disaster.
Disasters are often painted as events that come out of nowhere. But most disasters are predicted—at least by somebody. Disaster managers and researchers know what the biggest risks are and can imagine how they will play out. In part this is because many people, as you may have noticed, are really good at imagining bad things happening in excruciating detail. But more importantly, there are also large numbers of people who study seismology, epidemiology, meteorology, sociology, and other fields that deal with risk and disaster.
And it shows. Very often, a disaster has been imagined and modeled with striking accuracy long before it appears. Take the example of Hurricane Pam, a simulation exercise carried out in New Orleans almost exactly a year before Hurricane Katrina, which included most of the issues that the real storm would cause. Or this 2016 project by the Texas Tribune and ProPublica predicting the devastation that would be caused by Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Or the 2018 Palu earthquake.
It’s true for pandemics, too. Scientists have known for at least a century, since the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, about the risks of disease in a globalized world where a virus can leap from a village market to a metropolis on the other side of the world in days. The SARS and swine flu outbreaks reminded governments, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations to update their planning for managing and surviving epidemics. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had a series of exercises on a pandemic scenario earlier in 2019.
So if we know what to worry about, why are so many countries seemingly so poorly prepared to deal with disasters?
The first important answer is that many of these predictions do help— especially in the countries that take them seriously. The experience learned from SARS, MERS, and the swine flu left East Asian countries in general more capable of dealing with the coronavirus. The Hurricane Pam simulation demonstrated an awareness of what a hurricane would do to New Orleans, but it also highlighted problem areas that officials hadn’t considered, such as the difficulty of evacuating people who didn’t own cars. These weren’t completely ignored; the Senate report on Katrina found that although the plans being developed from the Hurricane Pam exercise weren’t finished in time for Katrina, “some officials took the initiative to use concepts developed in the drafts, with mixed success.” The problem is not in knowing what to do, it’s in doing it—and in the willingness to pay for it before it’s too late.
Mostly, as the Hurricane Katrina example shows, it’s doing it in a timely fashion. Because while we know quite a lot about probable disasters—where they will happen, what they will do, whom they will affect the most—what we don’t know is when. We predict disasters in poorly understood probabilities or vague ranges on the order of decades or even centuries, such as the “500-year flood.” That uncertainty has led decision-makers to postpone disaster preparedness, which studies have shown to have a significant return on investment in saved time and money during responses. Leaders can somewhat rationally hope that a predicted disaster will hit during someone else’s tenure and put their budgets toward more visible objectives.
It’s not just money, however. For many disasters, effectively preparing means making unpopular decisions: telling people they can’t build or live in flood plains or on the coast, prioritizing wetlands over industry, restricting travel. An emergency manager from Kesennuma, Japan, where oil from fuel tanks at the port caused an immensely destructive fire in the wake of the 2011 tsunami, told me that not only had his jurisdiction ignored this risk, oil tanks continued to line the coast of Japan. Knowing how dangerous it was, the government was still reluctant to restrict that economic activity.
This is nowhere more obvious than in that epitome of predicted disasters, climate change. We know what we need to do, or stop doing, to address the threat, and yet we keep pretending that it’s not our problem, that it can be left for later, that someone else—whether in another country or another generation—can make those necessary changes and pay the costs, in dollars and in discomfort. One study shows that $1 spent on preparedness mitigates an average of $15 worth of damage later — but that voters will reward spending on disaster mitigation, but not disaster preparedness.
That’s happened with wave after wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Even after seeing it happening elsewhere, even with the rational understanding that countries needed to act before they felt the impact, there were still delays and reluctance.
Our reluctance to believe in disasters is worsened by the way we treat each one, after the fact, as the only disaster. Government reports and media accounts alike are studded with words like unprecedented and unimaginable. Those reports supposedly have the purpose of learning from mistakes (and, more rarely, successes) to ensure that future disasters are handled more effectively. But, like simulation exercises and probabilities, those carefully documented lessons are rarely given the funding or political attention to be put into practice. After a disaster people are more likely to heave a sigh of relief and slide back into normalcy, forgetting those whose lives continue to be affected by the aftermath. And yet, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has found that “general acceptance for disaster risk reduction and recovery planning peaks after the disaster.” That is the brief window when we are convinced that devastating upheaval is possible and could happen to us.
We know that disasters will happen. We even know how and where. Let’s demand that our political leaders start putting that knowledge to good use.


foreignpolicy--2020-04-13--U.S. Official: Beware of Chinese Leaders Bearing Coronavirus Gifts

U.S. Official : Beware of Chinese Leaders Bearing Coronavirus Gifts The Trump administration is concerned that China could be trying to squeeze U.S. allies with a recent diplomatic salvo of coronavirus-related medical aid and humanitarian assistance , R. Clarke Cooper , the State Department ’ s assistant secretary for political-military affairs , said in an interview with Foreign Policy .
As China ’ s caseload from the virus first reported in Hubei province appears to be on the decline after peaking in mid-February , Beijing has pledged to send medical experts to Italy—the European nation with the most COVID-19 deaths—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing kits to Spain , many of which were found to be ineffective .
China ’ s aid offensive is leading the Trump administration to issue the same warning it has repeatedly given to Beijing ’ s would-be investment partners on port , highway , and other infrastructure projects around the world : that China could be leveraging those deals to gain greater control over foreign militaries and governments , and snoop on sensitive U.S. weapons .
This interview has been edited for length and clarity .
Foreign Policy : Do you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use aid for coronavirus-stricken nations to further defense ties ?
R. Clarke Cooper : On the surface , I think the question partners should ask is , “ Is this an altruistic measure ?
” But we , as we ’ ve said on things like infrastructure investment , foreign investment , and arms sales , is caveat emptor—buyer beware .
Maybe in this case , it ’ s gift-receiver beware , because China has suggested they ’ re gifting some of these things .
Look very carefully as to why the PRC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What we don ’ t want to do is not only have American technology exploited or stolen , we don ’ t want it inadvertently applied and misused by a state , like the PRC or by a state that would put it in an Orwellian application , per se .
FP : There have been some calls within the administration to pull U.S. weapons systems from countries that host Chinese Belt and Road projects .
Is that still on the table ?
RCC : What COVID has done is it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It touches everything and everybody .
Regardless if one ’ s a state actor , sitting in Beijing , or nonstate actor like a violent extremist organization , everyone ’ s impacted .
If we are partnered with a state , and they have either a historic or legacy sustainment line that ’ s been provided by the PRC in Beijing or the Russians , our concerns are about how that works in interoperable fashion .
There is a concern that we would not want any significant U.S. defense articles or sensitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or exploitation .
There are some weapons and material produced by the Chinese and Russians that do not have any consequence to a significant system .
If a partner flies F-16s and they ’ re interoperable with the U.S. Air Force , and they ’ re interoperable with other states that fly F-16s , but yet their ground guys happen to carry Kalashnikovs , that ’ s not a risk .
FP : Would the U.S. think of curtailing ties with nations trying to onboard systems like Huawei and 5G ?
RCC : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are of a sensitive nature provided to a partner are not at risk for exploitation or theft .
What we wouldn ’ t want to have happen is either inadvertently , or by exposure , have any of the infrastructure that ’ s been put in place in that security relationship compromised or impeded .
We wouldn ’ t want our own unique technologies or unique information we ’ re sharing with a partner to be exploited or just outright stolen .
FP : So the espionage component is a big deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. government ] writ large , we ’ re pointing out to partners if they ’ re doing particular foreign investments , purchase , or acquisition , that they ’ re not giving away or selling away critical infrastructure or strategic parts of what would be their national defense or their sovereignty .
It would be anything on information technology , IT infrastructure , or telecommunications infrastructure .
It can be physical as well .
It could be the management of a port .
The contracting or selling out of may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like highways , infrastructure , highway management , railroads , anything where a partner is either ceding or contracting out space to an actor that may not be taking into account that state ’ s sovereignty .
FP : What have been the major impacts of the coronavirus on U.S. arms sales ?
RCC : What we have heard so far is no state partner has voiced or reported interest in amending or canceling a procurement .
What we don ’ t know is where budgets are going to change , because everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Industry , to their credit , have been very candid about where they would need either assistance on moving the machinations of case processes .
They ’ ve also been very candid about where they might need extensions .
We ’ re able to do cases at the same pace and volume we did before COVID .
Industry is still reporting they can do what they are already signed up to do contractually and deliver .
Partners are claiming that they still want to procure .
On top of that , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests .
FP : How has the spread of coronavirus impacted arms sales for China and Russia ?
RCC : Moscow is still going to seek to take the opportunity to disrupt where they can .
When it comes to alliances like NATO , they ’ re using any means possible to disrupt the alliance .
They ’ re using any means possible to disrupt any states that would be interested in aspiring to join .
Then Beijing is certainly going to continue to cast itself as the savior of COVID , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cease from seeking additional markets on the sales of defense articles .
You ’ re still going to see entities like [ Russia ’ s ] Wagner Group having a disruptive role and the PRC trying to use the Belt and Road Initiative as an exploitive mechanism to extract resources .
But there is that pause I mentioned .
The virus is not discriminant .
Everyone is concerned about it , because it can force things to stop , and some adversaries are lacking capacity .
FP : Which weapons systems are China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners ?
RCC : The state armaments entity in Russia has been globally shopping several air defense systems .
The one that ’ s the most popular is the S-400 .
They ’ ve also been shopping the S-300 .
What we do know is that while they ’ re being shopped around , they ’ re having trouble selling , even at bargain-basement prices or fire-sale prices .
We also know the air defense capabilities the Russians are trying to sell are usually tied to something else , maybe another deal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come into play .
And we do win on that .
We ’ ve approached states under consideration for a procurement of a Russian article or a Chinese article , and they said , “ Well , it was cheap , ” or “ Well , we can get it faster , or they throw in an additional system , but we really prefer yours.
” While comparatively maybe the timeline is a little longer , maybe the price is a little higher , it ’ s still going to work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you , and we ’ re going to train you on it , and you ’ re going to be able to actually still use it .
To be fair to Moscow and Beijing , their challenges predate COVID .
None of us have grasped the impacts yet , because the challenges on being able to make deliveries and sale cancellations and failures on tests of particular materiel being produced by Beijing or Moscow , that all predates COVID .
So what COVID may amplify is the ability of who can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a quality level .

Explore the benefits included in your subscription.
Explore the benefits of your FP subscription.
Stay updated on the topics you care about with My FP. Sign up below.