foreignpolicy--2020-03-09--Italy’s Politicians Are Making the Coronavirus Crisis Worse

ROME—Italy currently has the world ’ s second-largest reported coronavirus infection rate after China , and it is the first country in the West dealing with a sizable outbreak , with 9,172 confirmed cases and 463 deaths ; so far , 724 people have recovered after being treated .
The head of the center-left Democratic Party , Nicola Zingaretti , has tested positive for COVID-19 , as has the governor of the Piedmont region .
On Saturday , in a dramatic step , the government put the entire region of Lombardy and 14 other provinces in the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 million people until at least April 3 in a region that is the country ’ s economic powerhouse—a move akin to locking down the entire New York or London metropolitan areas .
Schools and universities will be closed until early April , and all public events are canceled , while coffee shops , and other stores will be opened only on weekdays and until 6 p.m. Schools will remain closed in the rest of Italy until March 15 , although the date will likely be extended .
The latest decree imposes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China has taken in response to the epidemic , but it is also infused with ambiguous signals and hard-to-interpret provisions .
For instance , it forbids people from crossing the red-zone borders but also from traveling within it , with the exception of those travelers motivated by “ proven professional needs , exceptional cases , and health issues.
” How to evaluate what constitutes a professional mandatory need is unclear .
This and other vague aspects of the decree spurred an intense debate between the state and some local governors , who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government also mishandled its communication strategy .
An early draft was leaked to the press while the cabinet was still discussing it , and the unconfirmed reports of the lockdown worsened an already panicky mood .
Many people scrambled to leave the “ red zone , ” either by train or car , before the government officially announced the decree .
This strange combination of severity and amateurism is quite typical of a nation historically burdened by volatile governments , shifting parliamentary coalitions , inscrutable power struggles , and a self-harming tendency to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of domestic squabbles .
The current cabinet—the 66th in Italy ’ s 74 years as a republic—perfectly embodies these traits , a fact that does not bode well for the country ’ s coronavirus response .
The primary goal of Italy ’ s draconian new policy is to ensure that the country ’ s already stretched health system can handle the flow of patients needing intensive care .
Acute care units in Lombardy , the region with the most cases , are currently at capacity—and in some instances , doctors are forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , following guidelines around life expectancy that are both brutal and inevitable in a state of emergency .
World Health Organization ( WHO ) data shows that Italy has 275 acute-care hospital beds per 100,000 residents , while the average in the European Union is 394 .
The Italian government has a plan to increase intensive-care beds by 50 percent , but that requires time .
The government has also allocated 7.5 billion euros ( about $ 8.6 billion ) to support families and businesses heavily impacted by the epidemic , which will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy in the EU .
“ We should come down hard on the irresponsible people , the virus is not a joke , ” said Health Minister Roberto Speranza , in reference to the many instances in which the previous measures to enforce social distancing to curb the contagion were widely disregarded .
Reports of people crowding bars , skiing in packed resorts in the Alps , or squeezing into the beaches in several coastal towns made clear that mild measures wouldn ’ t work .
The effort to stop COVID-19 will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dysfunction .
Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte leads a peculiar center-left alliance between the Democratic Party and the populist Five Star Movement , two parties that formerly loathed each other .
Just six months ago , he was at the helm of an equally strange all-populist combination that included the far-right League as its driving force .
Rome is a political laboratory that makes scholars ’ most daring theories on populism look outdated .
In the last few weeks , Italy became a case study in crisis mismanagement , as a medical emergency of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
The results of the mix are hardly encouraging but could provide some valuable lessons .
The coronavirus is an extremely serious threat , but a climate in which politicians weaponize every bit of information for political gain could worsen its effects .
The government ’ s first misstep was to underestimate the threat when , in January , many called for severe measures to quarantine every single passenger arriving from China .
Making difficult decisions in moments of uncertainty is hard , but the actual reason why those appeals weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position was mostly pushed by the League ’ s Matteo Salvini , the archenemy of the cabinet , and by some League governors in the country ’ s northern regions .
Salvini was widely attacked for using the medical emergency as a fig leaf to push his trademark anti-immigration and xenophobic rhetoric—but for once he actually had a point , albeit for the wrong reasons .
When the virologist and media personality Roberto Burioni suggested those draconian measures were actually necessary to contain the spread , he himself was accused of being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Walter Ricciardi , a member of the WHO European Advisory Committee , later said that it was a “ great mistake ” not to quarantine people traveling from China in the first place .
In a misguided attempt to compensate for the initial underestimation , on Jan. 30 the Italian government canceled direct flights to and from China .
It was a mistake that made it impossible to track down the flow of people from the areas hit hardest by the epidemic while allowing thousands of passengers to reach Italy , unchecked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airports and elsewhere .
In a press conference announcing the decision , Conte bragged about Italy being the first EU country to take a step that , he said , was in line with the WHO assessment on the COVID-19 as a global threat .
It was a well-intentioned yet ill-advised decision .
Later on , when the outbreak was raging in Italy , Conte deemed the decisions of several countries to suspend flights to Italy “ unacceptable.
” While the virus was quickly spreading , Conte ’ s government did not miss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors of Lombardy , Veneto , and Piedmont .
On Feb. 25 , the prime minister even pointed to a hospital mess-up in the town of Codogno , where the person then identified as the country ’ s “ patient zero ” was hospitalized , which “ certainly contributed to the virus ’ s spread.
” The alarming piece of news quickly spread around the world , feeding the perception that Italy was unprepared to handle the emergency .
The story turned out to be false , but the prime minister ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adversaries .
Afterward , Conte awkwardly scrambled to take his comments back .
Those mistakes combined with a communication strategy that mixed uncertainty , improvisation , and continuous leaks to the press—in a memorable Freudian slip , Conte said at one point that the cabinet needs to send “ equivocal messages ” to the population , sparking some furious reactions even beyond right-leaning circles .
In a scathing op-ed in the newspaper Il Messaggero , the sociologist Luca Ricolfi wrote , “ If we want to limit the number of victims we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least for few weeks.
” The alternative , he explained , “ is to go ahead with the rancid soup that this government is giving us .
But we must know , then , that the cost of it will not be measured in terms of consensus , or lost GDP points , but in terms of human lives that we will choose not to save.
” The governor of Veneto , Luca Zaia , took a candidly racist stance by saying on live TV that “ we ’ ve all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salvini , of course , jumped at the opportunity to politicize the emergency , and for weeks he called Conte and his allies every name in the book .
“ This government can not manage normalcy , let alone an emergency , ” he told the Spanish newspaper El Pais .
He even tried to use the crisis to promote the idea of forming a government of “ national unity , ” suggesting former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi as a potential prime minister—a rather acrobatic twist for a leader who made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Salvini ’ s allies most involved in dealing with the outbreak contributed to creating a disjointed narrative that mixed alarmist cries and a Trumpian no-big-deal tone .
Just a few days after describing coronavirus as “ a little more than the normal flu , ” Attilio Fontana , the League governor of Lombardy , dramatically announced on his Facebook page that he was voluntarily self-isolating after one of his aides tested positive for the coronavirus .
Meanwhile , the governor of Veneto , Luca Zaia , took a candidly racist stance by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve all seen Chinese people eating live mice.
” Lately , the League and the other far-right populist party , Brothers of Italy , have been obsessing over reports that the Italian outbreak had originated in Germany , which fits with their nationalist narrative and provides someone to blame .
Another bizarre and damaging aspect of Italy ’ s initial handling of the emergency was the public role played by virologists .
Media-savvy—and sometimes publicity-hungry—medical experts have flooded the debate on television and social media , offering sometimes contradictory information about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures required to contain its spread .
At times , they bitterly fought on Twitter , fueling the perception that the scientific community was as divided as politicians on the issue and undermining the notion that there is a true and proven method of containing the outbreak .
The debate over competing hypotheses is the cornerstone of the scientific method , but instead of taking place in medical congresses and peer-reviewed journals , the argument unfolded publicly , in real time , interacting in bizarre ways with a quickly moving news cycle and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For several weeks , Italians have been more divided about their preferred virologists than they are about soccer teams .
And people picked their experts according to what they wanted to hear .
“ The war among scientists on the virus , ” recited the main headline on La Stampa ’ s front page on Feb. 28 .
One instance that generated wild reactions involved a virologist at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan , Maria Rita Gismondo , who described the infection as “ only slightly more serious than flu.
” She was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peers , but for days her words bounced around the internet , giving a sense of legitimacy to those who were shrugging off the threat .
A data analysis conducted by the Economist shows that epidemics like COVID-19 are typically deadlier in authoritarian regimes .
Democracies , with free flow of information and open debate , usually prove to be more resilient in dealing with complex crises .
“ During an outbreak , for example , constructive feedback about how government policies are working can help guide a more dynamic response , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has put in place a somewhat coherent , science-based plan to curb the contagion—may in the end confirm that assessment as accurate .
But if its dysfunctional political system , amateurish ruling class , and short-sighted leaders continue to squabble while Italians die , Rome ’ s response could end up making the authoritarians in Beijing—despite their initial cover-ups—look more competent in moments of crisis .

ROME—Italy currently has the world’s second-largest reported coronavirus infection rate after China, and it is the first country in the West dealing with a sizable outbreak, with 9,172 confirmed cases and 463 deaths; so far, 724 people have recovered after being treated. The head of the center-left Democratic Party, Nicola Zingaretti, has tested positive for COVID-19, as has the governor of the Piedmont region.
ROME—Italy currently has the world’s second-largest reported coronavirus infection rate after China, and it is the first country in the West dealing with a sizable outbreak, with 9,172 confirmed cases and 463 deaths; so far, 724 people have recovered after being treated. The head of the center-left Democratic Party, Nicola Zingaretti, has tested positive for COVID-19, as has the governor of the Piedmont region.
On Saturday, in a dramatic step, the government put the entire region of Lombardy and 14 other provinces in the country’s north on lockdown, effectively quarantining about 16 million people until at least April 3 in a region that is the country’s economic powerhouse—a move akin to locking down the entire New York or London metropolitan areas. Schools and universities will be closed until early April, and all public events are canceled, while coffee shops, and other stores will be opened only on weekdays and until 6 p.m. Schools will remain closed in the rest of Italy until March 15, although the date will likely be extended.
The latest decree imposes the most stringent restrictions any country outside of China has taken in response to the epidemic, but it is also infused with ambiguous signals and hard-to-interpret provisions. For instance, it forbids people from crossing the red-zone borders but also from traveling within it, with the exception of those travelers motivated by “proven professional needs, exceptional cases, and health issues.” How to evaluate what constitutes a professional mandatory need is unclear. This and other vague aspects of the decree spurred an intense debate between the state and some local governors, who are in charge of enforcing it.
The government also mishandled its communication strategy. An early draft was leaked to the press while the cabinet was still discussing it, and the unconfirmed reports of the lockdown worsened an already panicky mood. Many people scrambled to leave the “red zone,” either by train or car, before the government officially announced the decree.
This strange combination of severity and amateurism is quite typical of a nation historically burdened by volatile governments, shifting parliamentary coalitions, inscrutable power struggles, and a self-harming tendency to sacrifice its international credibility on the altars of domestic squabbles. The current cabinet—the 66th in Italy’s 74 years as a republic—perfectly embodies these traits, a fact that does not bode well for the country’s coronavirus response.
The primary goal of Italy’s draconian new policy is to ensure that the country’s already stretched health system can handle the flow of patients needing intensive care. Acute care units in Lombardy, the region with the most cases, are currently at capacity—and in some instances, doctors are forced to choose which patients to give priority to, following guidelines around life expectancy that are both brutal and inevitable in a state of emergency.
World Health Organization (WHO) data shows that Italy has 275 acute-care hospital beds per 100,000 residents, while the average in the European Union is 394. The Italian government has a plan to increase intensive-care beds by 50 percent, but that requires time. The government has also allocated 7.5 billion euros (about $8.6 billion) to support families and businesses heavily impacted by the epidemic, which will have a crushing effect on the slowest-growing economy in the EU.
“We should come down hard on the irresponsible people, the virus is not a joke,” said Health Minister Roberto Speranza, in reference to the many instances in which the previous measures to enforce social distancing to curb the contagion were widely disregarded. Reports of people crowding bars, skiing in packed resorts in the Alps, or squeezing into the beaches in several coastal towns made clear that mild measures wouldn’t work.
The effort to stop COVID-19 will be complicated by the country’s political dysfunction. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte leads a peculiar center-left alliance between the Democratic Party and the populist Five Star Movement, two parties that formerly loathed each other. Just six months ago, he was at the helm of an equally strange all-populist combination that included the far-right League as its driving force. Rome is a political laboratory that makes scholars’ most daring theories on populism look outdated.
In the last few weeks, Italy became a case study in crisis mismanagement, as a medical emergency of great magnitude met a chronically unstable political environment. The results of the mix are hardly encouraging but could provide some valuable lessons. The coronavirus is an extremely serious threat, but a climate in which politicians weaponize every bit of information for political gain could worsen its effects.
The government’s first misstep was to underestimate the threat when, in January, many called for severe measures to quarantine every single passenger arriving from China. Making difficult decisions in moments of uncertainty is hard, but the actual reason why those appeals weren’t considered was politics.
The hard-line position was mostly pushed by the League’s Matteo Salvini, the archenemy of the cabinet, and by some League governors in the country’s northern regions. Salvini was widely attacked for using the medical emergency as a fig leaf to push his trademark anti-immigration and xenophobic rhetoric—but for once he actually had a point, albeit for the wrong reasons.
When the virologist and media personality Roberto Burioni suggested those draconian measures were actually necessary to contain the spread, he himself was accused of being a “fascist” and a League supporter. Walter Ricciardi, a member of the WHO European Advisory Committee, later said that it was a “great mistake” not to quarantine people traveling from China in the first place.
In a misguided attempt to compensate for the initial underestimation, on Jan. 30 the Italian government canceled direct flights to and from China. It was a mistake that made it impossible to track down the flow of people from the areas hit hardest by the epidemic while allowing thousands of passengers to reach Italy, unchecked, through connecting flights in other European airports and elsewhere.
In a press conference announcing the decision, Conte bragged about Italy being the first EU country to take a step that, he said, was in line with the WHO assessment on the COVID-19 as a global threat. It was a well-intentioned yet ill-advised decision. Later on, when the outbreak was raging in Italy, Conte deemed the decisions of several countries to suspend flights to Italy “unacceptable.”
While the virus was quickly spreading, Conte’s government did not miss the opportunity to shift responsibility to the governors of Lombardy, Veneto, and Piedmont. On Feb. 25, the prime minister even pointed to a hospital mess-up in the town of Codogno, where the person then identified as the country’s “patient zero” was hospitalized, which “certainly contributed to the virus’s spread.” The alarming piece of news quickly spread around the world, feeding the perception that Italy was unprepared to handle the emergency. The story turned out to be false, but the prime minister’s actual goal was simply to discredit his adversaries. Afterward, Conte awkwardly scrambled to take his comments back.
Those mistakes combined with a communication strategy that mixed uncertainty, improvisation, and continuous leaks to the press—in a memorable Freudian slip, Conte said at one point that the cabinet needs to send “equivocal messages” to the population, sparking some furious reactions even beyond right-leaning circles.
In a scathing op-ed in the newspaper Il Messaggero, the sociologist Luca Ricolfi wrote, “If we want to limit the number of victims we will have to sacrifice some of our freedoms, at least for few weeks.” The alternative, he explained, “is to go ahead with the rancid soup that this government is giving us. But we must know, then, that the cost of it will not be measured in terms of consensus, or lost GDP points, but in terms of human lives that we will choose not to save.”
The governor of Veneto, Luca Zaia, took a candidly racist stance by saying on live TV that “we’ve all seen Chinese people eating live mice.”
Salvini, of course, jumped at the opportunity to politicize the emergency, and for weeks he called Conte and his allies every name in the book. “This government cannot manage normalcy, let alone an emergency,” he told the Spanish newspaper El Pais. He even tried to use the crisis to promote the idea of forming a government of “national unity,” suggesting former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi as a potential prime minister—a rather acrobatic twist for a leader who made his name thundering against Eurocrats and bankers.
Salvini’s allies most involved in dealing with the outbreak contributed to creating a disjointed narrative that mixed alarmist cries and a Trumpian no-big-deal tone. Just a few days after describing coronavirus as “a little more than the normal flu,” Attilio Fontana, the League governor of Lombardy, dramatically announced on his Facebook page that he was voluntarily self-isolating after one of his aides tested positive for the coronavirus.
Meanwhile, the governor of Veneto, Luca Zaia, took a candidly racist stance by saying on live TV that “we’ve all seen Chinese people eating live mice.” Lately, the League and the other far-right populist party, Brothers of Italy, have been obsessing over reports that the Italian outbreak had originated in Germany, which fits with their nationalist narrative and provides someone to blame.
Another bizarre and damaging aspect of Italy’s initial handling of the emergency was the public role played by virologists. Media-savvy—and sometimes publicity-hungry—medical experts have flooded the debate on television and social media, offering sometimes contradictory information about the danger of the virus and the proper measures required to contain its spread. At times, they bitterly fought on Twitter, fueling the perception that the scientific community was as divided as politicians on the issue and undermining the notion that there is a true and proven method of containing the outbreak.
The debate over competing hypotheses is the cornerstone of the scientific method, but instead of taking place in medical congresses and peer-reviewed journals, the argument unfolded publicly, in real time, interacting in bizarre ways with a quickly moving news cycle and generating a good deal of confusion. For several weeks, Italians have been more divided about their preferred virologists than they are about soccer teams.
And people picked their experts according to what they wanted to hear. “The war among scientists on the virus,” recited the main headline on La Stampa’s front page on Feb. 28. One instance that generated wild reactions involved a virologist at Luigi Sacco Hospital in Milan, Maria Rita Gismondo, who described the infection as “only slightly more serious than flu.” She was heavily rebuked by a number of her peers, but for days her words bounced around the internet, giving a sense of legitimacy to those who were shrugging off the threat.
A data analysis conducted by the Economist shows that epidemics like COVID-19 are typically deadlier in authoritarian regimes. Democracies, with free flow of information and open debate, usually prove to be more resilient in dealing with complex crises. “During an outbreak, for example, constructive feedback about how government policies are working can help guide a more dynamic response,” the magazine wrote.
Italy—now that it has put in place a somewhat coherent, science-based plan to curb the contagion—may in the end confirm that assessment as accurate. But if its dysfunctional political system, amateurish ruling class, and short-sighted leaders continue to squabble while Italians die, Rome’s response could end up making the authoritarians in Beijing—despite their initial cover-ups—look more competent in moments of crisis.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-09--Hindu Nationalists Are Pushing Magical Remedies for the Coronavirus

Hindu Nationalists Are Pushing Magical Remedies for the Coronavirus MUMBAI—Worried about the coronavirus ?
Well , just turn to the ever-useful cow .
On March 2 , Suman Haripriya , an elected member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) , said that cow urine and cow dung could be used to combat the outbreak .
Chakrapani Maharaj , a Hindu leader , told a news site he would be organizing an event to educate people on the use of cow products to fight the disease .
Those aren ’ t the only remedies from the Hindu-nationalist toolbox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told a television channel that Ayurvedic remedies could be deployed .
And a few days ago Yogi Adityanath , the fire-breathing Hindu-nationalist chief minister of Uttar Pradesh , exhorted Indians to practice yoga to overcome stress and stay strong against various diseases , including the coronavirus .
The promotion of nationalist pseudoscience under the BJP has worried Indian scientists and skeptics for years .
Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 , even some scientists looking to ride the wave have trotted out claims about ancient India having had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been fierce fights over attempts to license traditional medicine practitioners .
The government restructured existing departments to create the Ministry of AYUSH ( the acronym combines several traditional or pseudoscientific schools of medicine ) , to cover such practices .
Public figures , especially members of the Hindu right , championing folk remedies or upholding ancient wisdom is thus neither new nor surprising .
In recent years there have been such gems as : a BJP state chief minister claiming ancient Indians used the Internet , the prime minister himself alluding to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the god Ganesh ’ s elephant head on a human body , another BJP chief minister asserting that cows exhaled oxygen , and union ministers who have said that both cow urine and yoga can be used in treatments for cancer .
The coronavirus has added fuel to the fire .
The Ministry of AYUSH issued a dubious advisory on Jan. 29 , shortly after the spread of the virus outside China increased .
It was titled “ Homoeopathy for Prevention of Corona virus Infections : Unani Medicines useful in symptomatic management of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remedies .
A second advisory claimed the homeopathic medicine “ arsenicum album 30 ” could be used as a preventative prophylactic .
Homeopathy is a Western-invented pseudoscience that doles out microscopic doses of treatments , and it has become vastly popular in India .
It does not work .
“ Health misinformation has always been an issue , especially since the formation of AYUSH which has been officially spreading misinformation about health , ” said Pratik Sinha , the co-founder and editor of Alt News , a fact-checking site , which has run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India has seen 43 confirmed cases of the virus , but no deaths .
Given the country ’ s population density and creaking public health infrastructure , experts fear that the disease could quickly overwhelm health systems if not handled correctly .
And while the virus may be spreading unseen in India , so , more obviously , are a raft of baseless assertions .
“ It is a big challenge to identify and debunk medical misinformation , ” said Nabeela Khan , deputy editor at Health Analytics Asia , a data-driven health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debunk it , it hardly reaches people because fake news travels faster … but when influencers and leaders make dubious claims , people tend to fall for it all the more easily… .
It is important that politicians say things that are based on some scientific evidence and rationing.
” The government does take the coronavirus issue seriously .
This week Modi announced he would skip Holi celebrations—a festival that starts on Monday and usually draws huge crowds for playful events—and Health Minister Harsh Vardhan said that all international passengers were being screened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Hyderabad , where infected people are known to have traveled , several others have been quarantined and tested .
But as Anant Bhan , a researcher in global health , bioethics , and health policy at Kasturba Medical College in Manipal , pointed out , “ What the health ministry is saying and what the Ayush ministry is saying are not necessarily in conjunction.
” The dangers of disinformation and misinformation are obvious : In a developing country with high Internet connectivity and low literacy , bad information could have fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict or outbreaks , any irresponsible statement can have very negative implications through fanning fear-mongering and the spread of panic , ” said Bhan .
With fake news and general WhatsApp virality both serious problems in India , politicians and influencers alike have been guilty of acting irresponsibly .
“ Different kinds of misinformation are spread for different reasons .
With political misinformation it ’ s from a position of hate and anger , that ’ s not the case with medical misinformation , which is often out of concern or fear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these pseudoscientific claims , the motivation is a false sense of nationalism , which leads to a feeling of victimhood that traditional Indian remedies are looked down upon.
” India is constitutionally a “ secular ” state , and its first prime minister , Jawaharlal Nehru , helped lay the foundations for a “ temper of science ” in the country , by focusing on building newly independent India ’ s educational and research institutes .
India has seen a growing tech industry since the 1990s , and with its ambitious space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the global superpowers .
However , as the Hindu right has strengthened in the past few decades , science , pseudoscience and religion have become mixed up in a homogenizing nationalist drive undergirded by the glories of the past .
“ On and off public figures have been making unscientific claims but in the past six years this has gone up significantly .
Nowadays we also see university vice chancellors make such claims to pander to the political class , ” said Aniket Sule , a science educator and astrophysicist .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 for a second term , has long held that India is fundamentally a Hindu nation .
Claiming ownership of modern discoveries or innovations as actually Indian has become a way to signal the glory of India as a civilization .
“ We are in an era where populist politicians everywhere have a fan following that does not think critically .
It creates a problem — then how do you convince people ?
Some of this stems from ignorance as populist movements don ’ t have a strong intellectual background , so an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Sule .
In a piece in 2017 , opposition leader and writer Shashi Tharoor sharply condemned the government ’ s war on reason .
“ Science and rationality threaten such conformism , because they encourage skepticism , free inquiry , and testing of the traditional perspectives that the BJP is so eager to entrench , ” he wrote .
“ That is why , as the BJP attempts to transform secular India into a Hindu state , it must weaken the role of science.
” Over the years , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism or dissent , whilst fomenting religious polarization and nationalist pride .
Their growing political power has also meant that godmen and gurus have found greater prominence , whilst rationalists and activists have come under attack .
Academics and scientists have been increasingly vocal against the Modi-led BJP ’ s attack on universities and institutions .
But as ridiculous as some of the pseudoscientific statements from the mouths of politicians and gurus are , they show no signs of abating .
The comments around the coronavirus are only the latest in a war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard .
“ If scientific funds , already low , are going to be diverted to study the effects of cow urine or the scriptures it will have very real consequences for scientific policy and research , ” said Sule .

MUMBAI—Worried about the coronavirus? Well, just turn to the ever-useful cow. On March 2, Suman Haripriya, an elected member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said that cow urine and cow dung could be used to combat the outbreak. Chakrapani Maharaj, a Hindu leader, told a news site he would be organizing an event to educate people on the use of cow products to fight the disease.
MUMBAI—Worried about the coronavirus? Well, just turn to the ever-useful cow. On March 2, Suman Haripriya, an elected member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said that cow urine and cow dung could be used to combat the outbreak. Chakrapani Maharaj, a Hindu leader, told a news site he would be organizing an event to educate people on the use of cow products to fight the disease.
Those aren’t the only remedies from the Hindu-nationalist toolbox. Baba Ramdev, a popular guru, told a television channel that Ayurvedic remedies could be deployed. And a few days ago Yogi Adityanath, the fire-breathing Hindu-nationalist chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, exhorted Indians to practice yoga to overcome stress and stay strong against various diseases, including the coronavirus.
The promotion of nationalist pseudoscience under the BJP has worried Indian scientists and skeptics for years. Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, even some scientists looking to ride the wave have trotted out claims about ancient India having had airplanes and stem-cell research, while there have been fierce fights over attempts to license traditional medicine practitioners. The government restructured existing departments to create the Ministry of AYUSH (the acronym combines several traditional or pseudoscientific schools of medicine), to cover such practices.
Public figures, especially members of the Hindu right, championing folk remedies or upholding ancient wisdom is thus neither new nor surprising. In recent years there have been such gems as: a BJP state chief minister claiming ancient Indians used the Internet, the prime minister himself alluding to plastic surgery as the possible reason behind the god Ganesh’s elephant head on a human body, another BJP chief minister asserting that cows exhaled oxygen, and union ministers who have said that both cow urine and yoga can be used in treatments for cancer.
The coronavirus has added fuel to the fire. The Ministry of AYUSH issued a dubious advisory on Jan. 29, shortly after the spread of the virus outside China increased. It was titled “Homoeopathy for Prevention of Corona virus Infections: Unani Medicines useful in symptomatic management of Corona Virus infection” and suggested traditional remedies. A second advisory claimed the homeopathic medicine “arsenicum album 30” could be used as a preventative prophylactic. Homeopathy is a Western-invented pseudoscience that doles out microscopic doses of treatments, and it has become vastly popular in India. It does not work.
“Health misinformation has always been an issue, especially since the formation of AYUSH which has been officially spreading misinformation about health,” said Pratik Sinha, the co-founder and editor of Alt News, a fact-checking site, which has run pieces debunking the claims.
So far India has seen 43 confirmed cases of the virus, but no deaths. Given the country’s population density and creaking public health infrastructure, experts fear that the disease could quickly overwhelm health systems if not handled correctly.
And while the virus may be spreading unseen in India, so, more obviously, are a raft of baseless assertions. “It is a big challenge to identify and debunk medical misinformation,” said Nabeela Khan, deputy editor at Health Analytics Asia, a data-driven health news platform. “Even when you debunk it, it hardly reaches people because fake news travels faster … but when influencers and leaders make dubious claims, people tend to fall for it all the more easily…. It is important that politicians say things that are based on some scientific evidence and rationing.”
The government does take the coronavirus issue seriously. This week Modi announced he would skip Holi celebrations—a festival that starts on Monday and usually draws huge crowds for playful events—and Health Minister Harsh Vardhan said that all international passengers were being screened upon arrival. In Delhi, Rajasthan, and Hyderabad, where infected people are known to have traveled, several others have been quarantined and tested. But as Anant Bhan, a researcher in global health, bioethics, and health policy at Kasturba Medical College in Manipal, pointed out, “What the health ministry is saying and what the Ayush ministry is saying are not necessarily in conjunction.”
The dangers of disinformation and misinformation are obvious: In a developing country with high Internet connectivity and low literacy, bad information could have fatal consequences. “Whether during times of conflict or outbreaks, any irresponsible statement can have very negative implications through fanning fear-mongering and the spread of panic,” said Bhan.
With fake news and general WhatsApp virality both serious problems in India, politicians and influencers alike have been guilty of acting irresponsibly.
“Different kinds of misinformation are spread for different reasons. With political misinformation it’s from a position of hate and anger, that’s not the case with medical misinformation, which is often out of concern or fear,” said Sinha. “With some of these pseudoscientific claims, the motivation is a false sense of nationalism, which leads to a feeling of victimhood that traditional Indian remedies are looked down upon.”
India is constitutionally a “secular” state, and its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, helped lay the foundations for a “temper of science” in the country, by focusing on building newly independent India’s educational and research institutes. India has seen a growing tech industry since the 1990s, and with its ambitious space missions has aspired to join the ranks of the global superpowers. However, as the Hindu right has strengthened in the past few decades, science, pseudoscience and religion have become mixed up in a homogenizing nationalist drive undergirded by the glories of the past.
“On and off public figures have been making unscientific claims but in the past six years this has gone up significantly. Nowadays we also see university vice chancellors make such claims to pander to the political class,” said Aniket Sule, a science educator and astrophysicist.
The BJP, which returned to power in 2019 for a second term, has long held that India is fundamentally a Hindu nation. Claiming ownership of modern discoveries or innovations as actually Indian has become a way to signal the glory of India as a civilization.
“We are in an era where populist politicians everywhere have a fan following that does not think critically. It creates a problem — then how do you convince people? Some of this stems from ignorance as populist movements don’t have a strong intellectual background, so an inferiority complex morphs into a superiority complex,” said Sule.
In a piece in 2017, opposition leader and writer Shashi Tharoor sharply condemned the government’s war on reason. “Science and rationality threaten such conformism, because they encourage skepticism, free inquiry, and testing of the traditional perspectives that the BJP is so eager to entrench,” he wrote. “That is why, as the BJP attempts to transform secular India into a Hindu state, it must weaken the role of science.”
Over the years, the BJP has been accused of stifling any criticism or dissent, whilst fomenting religious polarization and nationalist pride. Their growing political power has also meant that godmen and gurus have found greater prominence, whilst rationalists and activists have come under attack.
Academics and scientists have been increasingly vocal against the Modi-led BJP’s attack on universities and institutions. But as ridiculous as some of the pseudoscientific statements from the mouths of politicians and gurus are, they show no signs of abating. The comments around the coronavirus are only the latest in a war against rationalism that could be long and hard. “If scientific funds, already low, are going to be diverted to study the effects of cow urine or the scriptures it will have very real consequences for scientific policy and research,” said Sule.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-09--Get Ready for Merkel’s Pro-Russia, China-Friendly Successor

“ Angela Merkel should quit soon , ” the Economist declared last month .
“ Angela Merkel is running out of road and should step down , ” the Financial Times opined last week .
Some leading German media haven ’ t been much kinder—and it ’ s not difficult to see why .
After more than 14 years in power , and with nearly two more to go , the German chancellor and her loveless grand-coalition government seem tired and out of ideas .
At home , the economy is faltering and the far-right is on the rise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ can barely hide his frustration with Merkel ’ s risk-averse approach to Europe .
A new world shaped by competition between China and a U.S. administration that calls Europe a “ foe ” has shaken the foundations of German prosperity and security .
And yet Merkel has failed to articulate a new vision for the country .
But it would be wrong to see her departure as the solution to Germany ’ s strategic ambiguity problem .
How Germany defines its foreign-policy interests in the post-Merkel era , and whether it can emerge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will ultimately depend on who replaces her and what sort of government that person leads .
And the early signs suggest Germany could continue down the enigmatic policy path that has defined the end of the Merkel era , confounding Berlin ’ s partners in Europe and beyond .
In recent weeks , Armin Laschet , the 59-year-old premier of North Rhine-Westphalia , Germany ’ s most populous state , has emerged as the front-runner in the contest to replace Merkel .
By coopting a leading conservative rival , Health Minister Jens Spahn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably longtime Merkel critic Friedrich Merz , onto the defensive .
On April 25 , at a congress of the Christian Democratic Union ( CDU ) , a new leader of the party will be chosen .
That person will instantly become the odds-on favourite to succeed Merkel in 2021 .
There are still many “ ifs ” around the Merkel succession and what it will mean for German policy .
Both Merz and Norbert Röttgen , a third contender who is seen as a long shot , are defenders of the transatlantic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that Germany must break out of its postwar reticence and take on more responsibility for its own security .
If one of them were to pull out a victory next month and go on to replace Merkel , the contours of German foreign policy would surely shift .
There is also a chance that the resurgent Greens could emerge as the strongest political force after the next federal election .
In that case , regardless of who wins the CDU leadership contest , Germany would get its first Green chancellor—presumably one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Habeck or Annalena Baerbock .
This could push Germany towards a more values-based foreign policy that doubles down on European integration and is tougher on Russia and China .
But Laschet is another story—a cautious moderate in the Merkel mode , but with a dose of her predecessor Gerhard Schröder ’ s business-über-alles reflex and readiness to engage with authoritarians .
In recent years , Laschet has warned against demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin for his annexation of Crimea , criticized Washington for supporting rebels trying to overthrow Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ German state with the closest economic ties to China , voiced support for deepening the relationship with Beijing .
Asked in November about shutting out Chinese telecommunications group Huawei from Germany ’ s 5G network—a move supported by his CDU rivals Röttgen and Merz—Laschet repeated Merkel ’ s economy-over-security talking points : “ The consequences of exclusion would be a delay in deploying this technology .
That can ’ t be our goal .
As an export-oriented country we have a large interest in free trade .
German business lives from international exports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as these led Schröder , a Social Democrat whose reputation has been badly tarnished by his close ties to Putin and lobbying on behalf of Russian energy interests , to endorse Laschet for chancellor last year in a joint interview the two did .
Laschet has since distanced himself from the politically toxic former chancellor .
But his comments on a range of foreign-policy topics prompted top-selling German newspaper Bild last month to demand a pledge from him not to “ cozy up ” to authoritarians .
Particularly striking were remarks he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year ago , in which he appeared to cast doubt on whether Russia was engaged in election meddling , cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns , saying there was a need to clear up which of these allegations were true and which are invented .
A year earlier , in the aftermath of Russia ’ s poisoning of former intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury , England , he openly questioned the British government ’ s blaming of Moscow for the attack .
Asked about some of these comments in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ aggressor ” in Ukraine and called Assad a “ war criminal.
” He has also played down the need for more German burden-sharing in the military sphere , a key demand of the Trump administration and European partners such as France .
Late last year , he criticized outgoing CDU leader Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer for proposing a safe zone for civilians fleeing fighting in Syria and rejected her suggestion that Germany shoulder more responsibility for international security , saying the country was already “ internationally active ” in places such as Afghanistan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Somalia .
To his credit , Laschet has not resorted to America-bashing in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s unrelenting verbal attacks on Germany and Europe , describing the United States as Berlin ’ s closest partner outside of Europe .
But some in Berlin are concerned that a future CDU-Greens coalition , led by either Laschet or Habeck , would deepen the divide with Washington , particularly if Trump wins reelection later this year .
After Trump ’ s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president as an “ adversary ” .
At the Munich Security Conference in February , Laschet , who grew up in Aachen near the border with Belgium and served as a member of the European Parliament before rising up the political ranks in North Rhine-Westphalia , issued a rare criticism of Merkel for her tepid response to Macron ’ s ideas for reforming Europe .
He has praised former Chancellor Helmut Kohl for having the courage to push initiatives like the euro currency despite opposition from many Germans .
But as leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more consensus builder than bold visionary .
Still , Jana Puglierin , who heads the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations , believes Laschet could inject new momentum into the Franco-German relationship .
He is likely to be more open to Macron ’ s idea to engage with Russia .
And if he were to lead a coalition with the Greens , some of the paralysis generated by years of grand-coalition government could be broken .
“ I share the hope that a change of chancellor and coalition would bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remain realistic , ” she said .
“ German reluctance to take on more responsibility will persist .
It ’ s a question of whether we can inch forward or not .
”

“Angela Merkel should quit soon,” the Economist declared last month. “Angela Merkel is running out of road and should step down,” the Financial Times opined last week. Some leading German media haven’t been much kinder—and it’s not difficult to see why.
“Angela Merkel should quit soon,” the Economist declared last month. “Angela Merkel is running out of road and should step down,” the Financial Times opined last week. Some leading German media haven’t been much kinder—and it’s not difficult to see why.
After more than 14 years in power, and with nearly two more to go, the German chancellor and her loveless grand-coalition government seem tired and out of ideas. At home, the economy is faltering and the far-right is on the rise. In neighboring France, President Emmanuel Macron can barely hide his frustration with Merkel’s risk-averse approach to Europe. A new world shaped by competition between China and a U.S. administration that calls Europe a “foe” has shaken the foundations of German prosperity and security. And yet Merkel has failed to articulate a new vision for the country.
But it would be wrong to see her departure as the solution to Germany’s strategic ambiguity problem. How Germany defines its foreign-policy interests in the post-Merkel era, and whether it can emerge from a prolonged period of drift, will ultimately depend on who replaces her and what sort of government that person leads. And the early signs suggest Germany could continue down the enigmatic policy path that has defined the end of the Merkel era, confounding Berlin’s partners in Europe and beyond.
In recent weeks, Armin Laschet, the 59-year-old premier of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, has emerged as the front-runner in the contest to replace Merkel. By coopting a leading conservative rival, Health Minister Jens Spahn, he has thrown other contenders, notably longtime Merkel critic Friedrich Merz, onto the defensive. On April 25, at a congress of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a new leader of the party will be chosen. That person will instantly become the odds-on favourite to succeed Merkel in 2021.
There are still many “ifs” around the Merkel succession and what it will mean for German policy. Both Merz and Norbert Röttgen, a third contender who is seen as a long shot, are defenders of the transatlantic relationship and tough critics of China who argue that Germany must break out of its postwar reticence and take on more responsibility for its own security. If one of them were to pull out a victory next month and go on to replace Merkel, the contours of German foreign policy would surely shift.
There is also a chance that the resurgent Greens could emerge as the strongest political force after the next federal election. In that case, regardless of who wins the CDU leadership contest, Germany would get its first Green chancellor—presumably one of the party’s two leaders, Robert Habeck or Annalena Baerbock. This could push Germany towards a more values-based foreign policy that doubles down on European integration and is tougher on Russia and China.
But Laschet is another story—a cautious moderate in the Merkel mode, but with a dose of her predecessor Gerhard Schröder’s business-über-alles reflex and readiness to engage with authoritarians.
In recent years, Laschet has warned against demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin for his annexation of Crimea, criticized Washington for supporting rebels trying to overthrow Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad, and, as leader of the German state with the closest economic ties to China, voiced support for deepening the relationship with Beijing.
Asked in November about shutting out Chinese telecommunications group Huawei from Germany’s 5G network—a move supported by his CDU rivals Röttgen and Merz—Laschet repeated Merkel’s economy-over-security talking points: “The consequences of exclusion would be a delay in deploying this technology. That can’t be our goal. As an export-oriented country we have a large interest in free trade. German business lives from international exports, also those to China.”
Positions such as these led Schröder, a Social Democrat whose reputation has been badly tarnished by his close ties to Putin and lobbying on behalf of Russian energy interests, to endorse Laschet for chancellor last year in a joint interview the two did.
Laschet has since distanced himself from the politically toxic former chancellor. But his comments on a range of foreign-policy topics prompted top-selling German newspaper Bild last month to demand a pledge from him not to “cozy up” to authoritarians.
Particularly striking were remarks he made at the German-Russian Forum in Berlin a year ago, in which he appeared to cast doubt on whether Russia was engaged in election meddling, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, saying there was a need to clear up which of these allegations were true and which are invented. A year earlier, in the aftermath of Russia’s poisoning of former intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England, he openly questioned the British government’s blaming of Moscow for the attack.
Asked about some of these comments in a recent interview, Laschet condemned Russia as an “aggressor” in Ukraine and called Assad a “war criminal.”
He has also played down the need for more German burden-sharing in the military sphere, a key demand of the Trump administration and European partners such as France. Late last year, he criticized outgoing CDU leader Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer for proposing a safe zone for civilians fleeing fighting in Syria and rejected her suggestion that Germany shoulder more responsibility for international security, saying the country was already “internationally active” in places such as Afghanistan, Mali, and off the coast of Somalia.
To his credit, Laschet has not resorted to America-bashing in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s unrelenting verbal attacks on Germany and Europe, describing the United States as Berlin’s closest partner outside of Europe. But some in Berlin are concerned that a future CDU-Greens coalition, led by either Laschet or Habeck, would deepen the divide with Washington, particularly if Trump wins reelection later this year. After Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January, Habeck described the president as an “adversary”.
At the Munich Security Conference in February, Laschet, who grew up in Aachen near the border with Belgium and served as a member of the European Parliament before rising up the political ranks in North Rhine-Westphalia, issued a rare criticism of Merkel for her tepid response to Macron’s ideas for reforming Europe. He has praised former Chancellor Helmut Kohl for having the courage to push initiatives like the euro currency despite opposition from many Germans. But as leader of North-Rhine Westphalia, he has been more consensus builder than bold visionary.
Still, Jana Puglierin, who heads the Berlin office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes Laschet could inject new momentum into the Franco-German relationship. He is likely to be more open to Macron’s idea to engage with Russia. And if he were to lead a coalition with the Greens, some of the paralysis generated by years of grand-coalition government could be broken.
“I share the hope that a change of chancellor and coalition would bring a new dynamic, but we have to remain realistic,” she said. “German reluctance to take on more responsibility will persist. It’s a question of whether we can inch forward or not.”


foreignpolicy--2020-03-10--Saudi Oil Gambit Leads to Market Panic

Saudi Oil Gambit Leads to Market Panic

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Saudi oil price war puts markets in turmoil , coronavirus shuts down all of Italy , and Ashraf Ghani survives rocket attack at his presidential inauguration in Afghanistan .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Global stock markets tumbled on Monday amid falling oil prices and uncertainty driven by the global coronavirus outbreak .
In New York , the Dow Jones industrial average was down 2,000 points—the most points ever lost in one session .
In London the FTSE 100 suffered its fifth-worst day in history as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 160 billion ) in market value .
What sparked the selloff ?
The immediate catalyst appeared to be Saudi Arabia ’ s decision to offer deeply discounted oil prices following Russia ’ s refusal to go along with OPEC ’ s plans for cuts in production .
In the face of potential falling oil revenues , Russia has remained defiant , “ The Russian oil industry has a quality resource base and enough financial resilience to remain competitive at any forecast price level , and to keep its market share , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a government meeting on Monday .
Who will blink first between Russia and Saudi Arabia ?
Between the two , Russia seems best placed to weather the storm ahead .
Russia only needs a $ 42 a barrel price to balance its budget , whereas Saudi Arabia needs prices to be over double that amount .
As Jason Bordoff argued yesterday in Foreign Policy , “ The problem for the kingdom is that Russia is more resilient to lower prices than it is , having added considerably to its foreign exchange reserves while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dwindled since the 2014 oil price collapse , ” he wrote .
Even with ample reserves “ a prolonged period of low prices will strain the Saudi budget , undermine investor confidence , and lead to speculation about the devaluation of the Saudi riyal.
” According to Sarah Ladislaw , director of the energy security and climate change program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , the Saudis can ’ t sustain their bluff for long .
“ I don ’ t think this is a situation Saudi Arabia finds comfortable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dual pressures of the domestic budget and the need to keep Saudi Aramco ’ s share price stable .
“ I don ’ t think they want to do it for very long , I don ’ t think they can do it for very long , and that ’ s why I think they ’ ve taken such aggressive action , ” Ladislaw said .
Is it time for U.S. government intervention ?
U.S. President Donald Trump , who has a habit of celebrating stock market highs on twitter , has so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market drops , tweeting , “ Good for the consumer , gasoline prices coming down !
” However , Foreign Policy ’ s Keith Johnson writes that if low oil prices persist , a wave of bankruptcies in the U.S. shale sector will likely follow .
The Washington Post reports that intervention is on the table to mitigate the economic effects of the coronavirus , with several policy options available to the president—including introducing paid sick leave measures and emergency funds for small businesses .
Coronavirus response escalates in Italy .
Italy further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country in another unprecedented move for the European nation worst hit by the coronavirus .
Italians will only be allowed travel for work , medical reasons , or emergencies until April 3 .
“ The right decision today is to stay at home , ” Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told reporters , “ Our future and the future of Italy is in our hands .
These hands have to be more responsible today than ever before.
” The drastic move could slow the spread of the virus , but it may be too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FP , Italy ’ s ruling class and its scientists have been publicly squabbling for weeks in order to score political points and gain publicity , while imperiling the country ’ s health .
Is it a pandemic yet ?
Speaking at a news conference yesterday , World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stopped short of calling the outbreak—now at 110,000 confirmed cases worldwide—a pandemic , but said the threat of one is “ very real.
” Meanwhile , in Israel , Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that all travellers entering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 14 days upon arrival .
The ruling is in place for the next two weeks and could affect up to 268,000 Israelis already outside the country .
Rockets disrupt Ghani inauguration .
In Afghanistan , Ashraf Ghani was inaugurated as president .
He wasn ’ t alone in claiming that title : His rival , Abdullah Abdullah , held his own swearing-in ceremony as the two continue to dispute the outcome of a September presidential election .
Ghani ’ s speech was interrupted by rocket fire during the ceremony , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have seen major attacks .
Don ’ t be afraid by two small blasts , ” he said .
Is the Afghan peace process still on ?
As Afghanistan endures more political turmoil , the March 10 date for talks between the Afghan government and Taliban has now been missed .
However , hope of dialogue still remains : Sources told Reuters that President Ghani plans to issue a decree releasing at least 1,000 Taliban prisoners this week , a move that addresses a major sticking point .
Marines killed in Iraq .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq during an anti-Islamic State operation conducted alongside Iraqi security forces .
Joint counterterrorism operations have resumed in the country after a pause following the killing of the Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani in January .
France floats cease-fire hopes .
Following French President Emmanuel Macron ’ s meeting with Libyan National Army commander Khalifa Haftar , a presidential source said that Haftar is open to signing a cease-fire agreement as long as militia groups on all sides also sign on .
Libya is currently caught between warring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the United Arab Emirates and Egypt on the other—after a peace conference failed in January .
Political violence in Sudan .
Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok survived an assassination attempt on Monday when his convoy came under attack .
State television said he was targeted by a car bomb , while state radio reported an attack by gunfire and projectiles .
Hamdok is leading Sudan ’ s transitional government following the downfall of former President Omar al-Bashir .
In response , the Sudanese Professional Association—the group instrumental in Bashir ’ s overthrow—has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for civilian rule .
Mexican women strike .
Thousands of women in Mexico staged a daylong strike in protests against gender-based violence and disappearances of women in the country .
The move comes after large demonstrations drew hundreds of thousands on Sunday to mark International Women ’ s Day .
The strike puts pressure on Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to take action to stem the wave of femicide the country is experiencing .
His approval rating has dropped 11 points over the past year .
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completed their final royal engagement at Westminster Abbey before they start their new lives away from Britain ’ s royal family .
The couple will now begin anew in Canada , where citizens are questioning their long-standing relationship with the British monarchy , as Stéphanie Fillion wrote in FP last week .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Saudi oil price war puts markets in turmoil , coronavirus shuts down all of Italy , and Ashraf Ghani survives rocket attack at his presidential inauguration in Afghanistan.
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Saudi oil price war puts markets in turmoil, coronavirus shuts down all of Italy, and Ashraf Ghani survives rocket attack at his presidential inauguration in Afghanistan.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
Markets Panic as Russia Holds Nerve in Saudi Price War
Global stock markets tumbled on Monday amid falling oil prices and uncertainty driven by the global coronavirus outbreak. In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average was down 2,000 points—the most points ever lost in one session. In London the FTSE 100 suffered its fifth-worst day in history as the index lost almost £125 billion (approximately $160 billion) in market value.
What sparked the selloff? The immediate catalyst appeared to be Saudi Arabia’s decision to offer deeply discounted oil prices following Russia’s refusal to go along with OPEC’s plans for cuts in production. In the face of potential falling oil revenues, Russia has remained defiant, “The Russian oil industry has a quality resource base and enough financial resilience to remain competitive at any forecast price level, and to keep its market share,” Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said at a government meeting on Monday.
Who will blink first between Russia and Saudi Arabia? Between the two, Russia seems best placed to weather the storm ahead. Russia only needs a $42 a barrel price to balance its budget, whereas Saudi Arabia needs prices to be over double that amount. As Jason Bordoff argued yesterday in Foreign Policy, “The problem for the kingdom is that Russia is more resilient to lower prices than it is, having added considerably to its foreign exchange reserves while Saudi Arabia’s fiscal cushion has dwindled since the 2014 oil price collapse,” he wrote. Even with ample reserves “a prolonged period of low prices will strain the Saudi budget, undermine investor confidence, and lead to speculation about the devaluation of the Saudi riyal.”
According to Sarah Ladislaw, director of the energy security and climate change program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Saudis can’t sustain their bluff for long. “I don’t think this is a situation Saudi Arabia finds comfortable,” she said, citing the dual pressures of the domestic budget and the need to keep Saudi Aramco’s share price stable. “I don’t think they want to do it for very long, I don’t think they can do it for very long, and that’s why I think they’ve taken such aggressive action,” Ladislaw said.
Is it time for U.S. government intervention? U.S. President Donald Trump, who has a habit of celebrating stock market highs on twitter, has so far shrugged off concerns about the recent market drops, tweeting, “Good for the consumer, gasoline prices coming down!” However, Foreign Policy’s Keith Johnson writes that if low oil prices persist, a wave of bankruptcies in the U.S. shale sector will likely follow. The Washington Post reports that intervention is on the table to mitigate the economic effects of the coronavirus, with several policy options available to the president—including introducing paid sick leave measures and emergency funds for small businesses.
What We’re Following Today
Coronavirus response escalates in Italy. Italy further extended its quarantine to include the entire country in another unprecedented move for the European nation worst hit by the coronavirus. Italians will only be allowed travel for work, medical reasons, or emergencies until April 3. “The right decision today is to stay at home,” Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told reporters, “Our future and the future of Italy is in our hands. These hands have to be more responsible today than ever before.”
The drastic move could slow the spread of the virus, but it may be too late. As Mattia Ferraresi argues in FP, Italy’s ruling class and its scientists have been publicly squabbling for weeks in order to score political points and gain publicity, while imperiling the country’s health.
Is it a pandemic yet? Speaking at a news conference yesterday, World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stopped short of calling the outbreak—now at 110,000 confirmed cases worldwide—a pandemic, but said the threat of one is “very real.” Meanwhile, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that all travellers entering the country from abroad would need to self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. The ruling is in place for the next two weeks and could affect up to 268,000 Israelis already outside the country.
Rockets disrupt Ghani inauguration. In Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani was inaugurated as president. He wasn’t alone in claiming that title: His rival, Abdullah Abdullah, held his own swearing-in ceremony as the two continue to dispute the outcome of a September presidential election. Ghani’s speech was interrupted by rocket fire during the ceremony, but he played down its impact, “We have seen major attacks. Don’t be afraid by two small blasts,” he said.
Is the Afghan peace process still on? As Afghanistan endures more political turmoil, the March 10 date for talks between the Afghan government and Taliban has now been missed. However, hope of dialogue still remains: Sources told Reuters that President Ghani plans to issue a decree releasing at least 1,000 Taliban prisoners this week, a move that addresses a major sticking point.
Marines killed in Iraq. Two U.S. Marines were killed and four other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq during an anti-Islamic State operation conducted alongside Iraqi security forces. Joint counterterrorism operations have resumed in the country after a pause following the killing of the Iranian commander Qassem Suleimani in January.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-10--Trump and Other Leaders Grapple With Limited Economic Remedies for the Virus

Trump and Other Leaders Grapple With Limited Economic Remedies for the Virus Rattled by Monday ’ s historic decline in the stock market , U.S. President Donald Trump is proposing a slate of measures to help contain the economic fallout of the coronavirus , which is sparking fears of recession from Japan to Europe and even in the United States .
But the administration ’ s preferred remedies will face both an uphill fight in Congress and doubts over how effective they would be .
After markets closed up Tuesday on hopes of some kind of fiscal stimulus , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposals that might include another tax cut ( this time of the payroll tax ) , combined with paid sick leave and other support for hourly workers .
Reports indicated that Trump is pushing for a total elimination of the payroll tax through the end of the year , which would cost about $ 900 billion and would be larger than the Obama-era stimulus in the wake of the financial crash .
But a day after promising “ very major ” economic relief , the president had little to say following a midday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was just with the Republican senators and they were just about all there , mostly all there and there ’ s a great feeling about doing a lot of the things , ” he told reporters .
Other options could include loan support for cash-strapped businesses hit particularly hard by the virus ; one idea gaining traction is a federal bailout for oil and gas producers struggling under the oil-price war unleashed by the virus , in addition to government aid for industries such as travel and hotels that have suffered a drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , true to form , Trump has also continued to pressure the Federal Reserve to further cut interest rates—the central bank already slashed the prime lending rate by half a percentage point in an emergency move last week—to kickstart an economy that by some indicators is looking wobbly .
In the end , whatever economic medicine Washington comes up with to battle the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak will be largely determined by Congress—especially the Democrats , who control the House .
Most Democrats prefer targeted measures like sick leave that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outbreak or the effects of school and business closures .
They , like many Republicans , are not keen on the idea of payroll tax cuts , which would benefit only those with a regular job and which would trickle into consumers ’ pockets in small amounts and slowly , lessening its impact as a tool to revitalize a lagging economy .
Other critics of the payroll tax cut , including former economic advisors to past administrations , argue that , though such cuts were useful between 2011 and 2012 as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , they ’ re the wrong tool to deal with the fallout of the coronavirus .
A payroll tax cut “ is better than doing nothing , but it doesn ’ t address the problem directly , ” said Adam Posen , the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics .
“ It seems an unnecessary expense with too little ambition.
” He said he favored more targeted policies that would allow people to stay at home and mitigate the load on the health care system as the outbreak runs its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad macroeconomic stimulus .
And that ’ s because the broader conundrum facing the administration , like its counterparts in Asia and Europe , is that the economic harm done by the virus isn ’ t best treated with traditional forms of stimulus , like tax cuts and lower interest rates .
That ’ s one big difference with the financial crisis a decade ago : Then , throwing money at the problem helped , whether through liquidity injections for banks , lower interest rates , or more government spending , because a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the problem .
Even then , massive government stimulus struggled to get companies to resume the kinds of investments they were making before the crisis .
Here , getting a few extra bucks into people ’ s pockets won ’ t somehow make them fly or eat out more when flights are cancelled and lockdowns are in place .
“ This is analogous to the response of corporate investment in the financial crisis : We ’ d be pushing on a string , ” Posen said .
“ Basically , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be spending anyway.
” Trump ’ s other go-to option to spur the economy is interest rate cuts : He has repeatedly badgered Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to cut U.S. interest rates as low as those of other central banks , such as in Japan and Europe .
On Tuesday , he attacked “ our pathetic , slow-moving Federal Reserve ” for not cutting rates faster , even though it did so just last week .
But interest rate cuts are helpful when the problem in the economy is a general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mortgages are made cheaper through lower rates , that should stimulate more business investment and boost the housing market , driving broader economic growth .
Tight credit isn ’ t exactly a problem in the United States right now—the federal funds rate is now 1 percent to 1.25 percent , historically low ( though higher than it was in the aftermath of the financial crisis ) .
And lower rates are hardly a panacea .
Economists have found that when interest rates are already low for prolonged periods of time , additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true when the rates are already close to zero .
“ They ’ re both running out of ammunition , and the ammunition is less effective , ” Posen said .
“ A supply shock , as opposed to a financial shock , is particularly ill-suited to monetary stimulus .
Nobody should kid themselves , least of all the president , that monetary policy is the answer.
” All of which , as countries around the world seek to offset the impacts of the virus , makes old-fashioned fiscal stimulus—more government spending on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency lines of credit , or paid sick leave—seem like the more practical option .
Countries including Japan , South Korea , Australia , Germany , Ireland , and Italy have all pledged multibillion-dollar stimulus packages , and European Union leaders will meet this week to discuss a coordinated economic response to the crisis .
The question is whether those big economies will have enough maneuvering room to deploy the kinds of large-scale fiscal stimulus that might be necessary to counteract any prolonged slowdown , and especially to make a difference to global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes Fitch Ratings agency , are among the weakest countries in terms of public finances ; the countries that are in the best shape , budget-wise , are also the smallest and can make the least contribution to a global turnaround .
“ Countries where fiscal stimulus could provide a fillip to global growth have less fiscal space available for doing so , ” Fitch said in a report .
March 10 : This story has been updated with further details of economic relief from the White House .

Rattled by Monday’s historic decline in the stock market, U.S. President Donald Trump is proposing a slate of measures to help contain the economic fallout of the coronavirus, which is sparking fears of recession from Japan to Europe and even in the United States. But the administration’s preferred remedies will face both an uphill fight in Congress and doubts over how effective they would be.
Rattled by Monday’s historic decline in the stock market, U.S. President Donald Trump is proposing a slate of measures to help contain the economic fallout of the coronavirus, which is sparking fears of recession from Japan to Europe and even in the United States. But the administration’s preferred remedies will face both an uphill fight in Congress and doubts over how effective they would be.
After markets closed up Tuesday on hopes of some kind of fiscal stimulus, the Trump administration presented a vague combination of proposals that might include another tax cut (this time of the payroll tax), combined with paid sick leave and other support for hourly workers. Reports indicated that Trump is pushing for a total elimination of the payroll tax through the end of the year, which would cost about $900 billion and would be larger than the Obama-era stimulus in the wake of the financial crash.
But a day after promising “very major” economic relief, the president had little to say following a midday meeting with Republican senators. “I was just with the Republican senators and they were just about all there, mostly all there and there’s a great feeling about doing a lot of the things,” he told reporters.
Other options could include loan support for cash-strapped businesses hit particularly hard by the virus; one idea gaining traction is a federal bailout for oil and gas producers struggling under the oil-price war unleashed by the virus, in addition to government aid for industries such as travel and hotels that have suffered a drop in business as the outbreak has grown.
And, true to form, Trump has also continued to pressure the Federal Reserve to further cut interest rates—the central bank already slashed the prime lending rate by half a percentage point in an emergency move last week—to kickstart an economy that by some indicators is looking wobbly.
In the end, whatever economic medicine Washington comes up with to battle the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak will be largely determined by Congress—especially the Democrats, who control the House.
Most Democrats prefer targeted measures like sick leave that will deal directly with those affected by the outbreak or the effects of school and business closures. They, like many Republicans, are not keen on the idea of payroll tax cuts, which would benefit only those with a regular job and which would trickle into consumers’ pockets in small amounts and slowly, lessening its impact as a tool to revitalize a lagging economy. Other critics of the payroll tax cut, including former economic advisors to past administrations, argue that, though such cuts were useful between 2011 and 2012 as the country struggled to recover from the financial crisis, they’re the wrong tool to deal with the fallout of the coronavirus.
A payroll tax cut “is better than doing nothing, but it doesn’t address the problem directly,” said Adam Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “It seems an unnecessary expense with too little ambition.” He said he favored more targeted policies that would allow people to stay at home and mitigate the load on the health care system as the outbreak runs its course, rather than some form of broad macroeconomic stimulus.
And that’s because the broader conundrum facing the administration, like its counterparts in Asia and Europe, is that the economic harm done by the virus isn’t best treated with traditional forms of stimulus, like tax cuts and lower interest rates. That’s one big difference with the financial crisis a decade ago: Then, throwing money at the problem helped, whether through liquidity injections for banks, lower interest rates, or more government spending, because a lack of money was at the root of the problem.
Even then, massive government stimulus struggled to get companies to resume the kinds of investments they were making before the crisis. Here, getting a few extra bucks into people’s pockets won’t somehow make them fly or eat out more when flights are cancelled and lockdowns are in place.
“This is analogous to the response of corporate investment in the financial crisis: We’d be pushing on a string,” Posen said. “Basically, in the affected sectors, people are not going to be spending anyway.”
Trump’s other go-to option to spur the economy is interest rate cuts: He has repeatedly badgered Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to cut U.S. interest rates as low as those of other central banks, such as in Japan and Europe. On Tuesday, he attacked “our pathetic, slow-moving Federal Reserve” for not cutting rates faster, even though it did so just last week.
But interest rate cuts are helpful when the problem in the economy is a general lack of credit: If business loans and mortgages are made cheaper through lower rates, that should stimulate more business investment and boost the housing market, driving broader economic growth. Tight credit isn’t exactly a problem in the United States right now—the federal funds rate is now 1 percent to 1.25 percent, historically low (though higher than it was in the aftermath of the financial crisis).
And lower rates are hardly a panacea. Economists have found that when interest rates are already low for prolonged periods of time, additional rate cuts lose much of their oomph—doubly true when the rates are already close to zero.
“They’re both running out of ammunition, and the ammunition is less effective,” Posen said. “A supply shock, as opposed to a financial shock, is particularly ill-suited to monetary stimulus. Nobody should kid themselves, least of all the president, that monetary policy is the answer.”
All of which, as countries around the world seek to offset the impacts of the virus, makes old-fashioned fiscal stimulus—more government spending on things like expanded unemployment insurance, or emergency lines of credit, or paid sick leave—seem like the more practical option. Countries including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Germany, Ireland, and Italy have all pledged multibillion-dollar stimulus packages, and European Union leaders will meet this week to discuss a coordinated economic response to the crisis.
On Wednesday, the U.K. unveiled an expansive new budget that includes 30 billion pounds in stimulus to counter the effects of the virus. That came just hours after the Bank of England cut its interest rate by half a point to 0.25 percent as part of a double-barreled effort to keep the sluggish British economy from retracting.
The question is whether those big economies will have enough maneuvering room to deploy the kinds of large-scale fiscal stimulus that might be necessary to counteract any prolonged slowdown, and especially to make a difference to global growth. The big G-7 economies, notes Fitch Ratings agency, are among the weakest countries in terms of public finances; the countries that are in the best shape, budget-wise, are also the smallest and can make the least contribution to a global turnaround.
“Countries where fiscal stimulus could provide a fillip to global growth have less fiscal space available for doing so,” Fitch said in a report.
Mar. 10: This story has been updated with further details of economic relief from the White House.
Mar. 11: This story has been updated with details from the U.K.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-10--Xi’s Fake History Lesson for Hun Sen

Xi’s Fake History Lesson for Hun Sen

Last month , Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in a show of solidarity amid the coronavirus crisis .
Hun Sen was the first foreign leader to visit China after the outbreak began , calling Cambodia and China “ steadfast friends ” and criticizing other countries for restricting travel to China .
The visit was another example of how Phnom Penh has grown closer to Beijing in recent years , while drifting further from the West .
Cambodia appears increasingly like a Chinese vassal state .
China is Cambodia ’ s biggest investor—best evidenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transformed by the construction of apartments , casinos , and hotels for Chinese nationals .
Cambodia seems to have handed over large swaths of its coastline to China for military purposes .
And as China has backed major infrastructure projects and pledged around $ 100 million in military aid , Cambodia has vetoed Association of Southeast Asian Nations resolutions opposing China ’ s expansive claims in the South China Sea .
It ’ s unsurprising then that Hun Sen has shaped Cambodia ’ s domestic and foreign policy to support Beijing ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliance a step further , mirroring Xi in rewriting Cambodia ’ s official Khmer Rouge-era history : exempting Beijing ’ s wrongdoings and emphasizing those of the United States instead .
The shift seems intended to enable China ’ s influence-building process in Cambodia .
Hun Sen was just a low-level commander in the Khmer Rouge when he defected to Vietnam in 1977 .
Vietnam occupied Cambodia in 1979 and placed Hun Sen in power in 1985 , and he has remained there ever since .
He now rebukes the Khmer Rouge regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population between 1975 and 1979—a reign of terror from which Hun Sen claims to have delivered Cambodia .
“ The January 7 victory saved millions of Cambodians who were already at the brink of death , ” he said last year during annual celebrations commemorating the Khmer Rouge ’ s defeat .
“ It restored the spiritual and physical value of the Cambodian people.
” Recently , Hun Sen has excluded China from the Khmer Rouge narrative , revealing where his loyalties lie .
In a 2018 propaganda film that presents the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the prime minister emphasizes the U.S. clandestine bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War , just before the Khmer Rouge gained popular support .
He does not mention Chinese aid .
Hun Sen is also eager to blame other Asian countries for supporting the Khmer Rouge , such as Singapore , which he says has a “ wish for its return to Cambodia.
” Singapore , Thailand , and other Southeast Asian countries—deeply divided by the Cold War—opposed Vietnam ’ s invasion of Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge .
Yet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Khmer Rouge , seeking to preserve the ideological similarities between his Communist Party—struggling at home in the wake of the Cultural Revolution—and Pol Pot ’ s Cambodian analogue .
When the Khmer Rouge came to power , Mao won a vital ideological victory , gaining a proxy in the developing world as many other China-backed groups , such as those in Malaysia and Myanmar , struggled .
The details of China ’ s support for the Khmer Rouge are still debated , but Chinese officials have conceded that Beijing provided Cambodia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scythes.
” Andrew Mertha , the author of Brothers in Arms : China ’ s Aid to the Khmer Rouge , 1975–1979 , contends that it was more than that : Based on interviews with Cambodians and Chinese officials , he estimates that China provided at least 90 percent of the Khmer Rouge ’ s foreign aid .
“ Without China ’ s assistance , the Khmer Rouge regime would not have lasted a week , ” Mertha told the New York Times in 2015 .
Some Cambodian experts agree .
“ China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war and was the sole critical supporter throughout the 1975-1979 Democratic Kampuchea period of genocide , ” Diep Sophal , a Cambodian professor at the University of Cambodia , told Voice of America .
“ With Chinese money and support , Pol Pot carried out the period of murder , starvation and brutality.
” In disputes over Khmer Rouge history , Hun Sen ’ s regime now backs China .
Last year , the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh posted a statement on Facebook blaming China for supporting the Khmer Rouge that included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dongxing , then the vice chairman of the Chinese Communist Party .
The Chinese Embassy responded by blaming the United States for the 1970 coup , carried out by a U.S.-favored general , that set the stage for the rise of the Khmer Rouge .
There is no concrete evidence that the United States supported the coup , but Cambodia ’ s Ministry of National Defense echoed China in the dispute , blaming the civil war on “ a coup supported by [ the ] United States in 1970.
” Siding with China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economically dependent on Chinese patronage and Hun Sen relies on Beijing ’ s political support .
But the Belt and Road Initiative ’ s expansion into Cambodia has prompted rising anti-Chinese sentiment among locals .
China ’ s past support of the Khmer Rouge could further diminish its poor public standing .
Hun Sen ’ s historical revisionism is an attempt to lift up Cambodians ’ opinions of China—another example of Hun Sen ’ s fealty toward Beijing .
In rewriting history , Hun Sen is also following Beijing ’ s lead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s supremacy by diminishing past failures , including the fall of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent Sino-Vietnamese War .
China ordered a punitive invasion of Vietnam after it invaded Cambodia in December 1978 and forced the Khmer Rouge out of Phnom Penh , causing Beijing to lose its proxy state .
The Sino-Vietnamese War was disastrous for China : At least 20,000 Chinese soldiers died in the first month , and a cease-fire was called .
Vietnam occupied Cambodia for nearly a decade .
China has omitted this history from its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the war and books about it refused publication .
In 2012 , it briefly appeared that China would acknowledge its role in the rise of the Khmer Rouge .
“ When people mention the Khmer Rouge , many might be reminded of the support China once gave it .
This is a problem that can not be avoided , ” an article in the state-run Global Times read .
But Xi ascended to power two months later and embarked on a campaign against “ historical nihilism ” —anything critical of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi ’ s rewriting of history reflects Beijing ’ s desire to move beyond its so-called century of humiliation after the First Opium War .
China ’ s failures in Cambodia , supporting a genocide and losing a proxy state , have simply been erased .
Hun Sen ’ s own historical whitewashing , which supplants Chinese wrongdoing with U.S. wrongdoing—its relentless Vietnam War-era bombing campaign—is designed to please Beijing .
It also serves to bolster dwindling public support for China within Cambodia and to counter good will toward the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way for increased Chinese influence in Cambodia , it will require at least some toleration from Cambodians .
So far , Xi has been more successful at rewriting history than Hun Sen .
Many young Cambodians blame the prime minister for corruption , skyrocketing household debt , and lagging development despite Chinese investment .
It remains to be seen if they will come to blame Cambodia ’ s genocide on the United States .
Unless Cambodians come to trust their prime minister ’ s politicized praise , his historical revisionism looks unlikely @ @ @

Last month, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in a show of solidarity amid the coronavirus crisis. Hun Sen was the first foreign leader to visit China after the outbreak began, calling Cambodia and China “ steadfast friends ” and criticizing other countries for restricting travel to China. The visit was another example of how Phnom Penh has grown closer to Beijing in recent years, while drifting further from the West.
Last month, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing in a show of solidarity amid the coronavirus crisis. Hun Sen was the first foreign leader to visit China after the outbreak began, calling Cambodia and China “steadfast friends” and criticizing other countries for restricting travel to China. The visit was another example of how Phnom Penh has grown closer to Beijing in recent years, while drifting further from the West.
Cambodia appears increasingly like a Chinese vassal state. China is Cambodia’s biggest investor—best evidenced by the coastal city of Sihanoukville, transformed by the construction of apartments, casinos, and hotels for Chinese nationals. Cambodia seems to have handed over large swaths of its coastline to China for military purposes. And as China has backed major infrastructure projects and pledged around $100 million in military aid, Cambodia has vetoed Association of Southeast Asian Nations resolutions opposing China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea.
It’s unsurprising then that Hun Sen has shaped Cambodia’s domestic and foreign policy to support Beijing’s interests. He has now taken the alliance a step further, mirroring Xi in rewriting Cambodia’s official Khmer Rouge-era history: exempting Beijing’s wrongdoings and emphasizing those of the United States instead. The shift seems intended to enable China’s influence-building process in Cambodia.
Hun Sen was just a low-level commander in the Khmer Rouge when he defected to Vietnam in 1977. Vietnam occupied Cambodia in 1979 and placed Hun Sen in power in 1985, and he has remained there ever since. He now rebukes the Khmer Rouge regime, which killed nearly a quarter of the population between 1975 and 1979—a reign of terror from which Hun Sen claims to have delivered Cambodia. “The January 7 victory saved millions of Cambodians who were already at the brink of death,” he said last year during annual celebrations commemorating the Khmer Rouge’s defeat. “It restored the spiritual and physical value of the Cambodian people.”
Recently, Hun Sen has excluded China from the Khmer Rouge narrative, revealing where his loyalties lie. In a 2018 propaganda film that presents the ruling party’s version of history, the prime minister emphasizes the U.S. clandestine bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, just before the Khmer Rouge gained popular support. He does not mention Chinese aid. Hun Sen is also eager to blame other Asian countries for supporting the Khmer Rouge, such as Singapore, which he says has a “wish for its return to Cambodia.” Singapore, Thailand, and other Southeast Asian countries—deeply divided by the Cold War—opposed Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge.
Yet the Chinese leader Mao Zedong did support the Khmer Rouge, seeking to preserve the ideological similarities between his Communist Party—struggling at home in the wake of the Cultural Revolution—and Pol Pot’s Cambodian analogue. When the Khmer Rouge came to power, Mao won a vital ideological victory, gaining a proxy in the developing world as many other China-backed groups, such as those in Malaysia and Myanmar, struggled.
The details of China’s support for the Khmer Rouge are still debated, but Chinese officials have conceded that Beijing provided Cambodia’s Maoists with “food, hoes and scythes.” Andrew Mertha, the author of Brothers in Arms: China’s Aid to the Khmer Rouge, 1975–1979, contends that it was more than that: Based on interviews with Cambodians and Chinese officials, he estimates that China provided at least 90 percent of the Khmer Rouge’s foreign aid. “Without China’s assistance, the Khmer Rouge regime would not have lasted a week,” Mertha told the New York Times in 2015.
Some Cambodian experts agree. “China supported the Khmer Rouge during the 1970-1975 war and was the sole critical supporter throughout the 1975-1979 Democratic Kampuchea period of genocide,” Diep Sophal, a Cambodian professor at the University of Cambodia, told Voice of America. “With Chinese money and support, Pol Pot carried out the period of murder, starvation and brutality.”
In disputes over Khmer Rouge history, Hun Sen’s regime now backs China. Last year, the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh posted a statement on Facebook blaming China for supporting the Khmer Rouge that included a photo of Pol Pot with Wang Dongxing, then the vice chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Embassy responded by blaming the United States for the 1970 coup, carried out by a U.S.-favored general, that set the stage for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. There is no concrete evidence that the United States supported the coup, but Cambodia’s Ministry of National Defense echoed China in the dispute, blaming the civil war on “a coup supported by [the] United States in 1970.”
Siding with China is a pragmatic choice: Cambodia is economically dependent on Chinese patronage and Hun Sen relies on Beijing’s political support. But the Belt and Road Initiative’s expansion into Cambodia has prompted rising anti-Chinese sentiment among locals. China’s past support of the Khmer Rouge could further diminish its poor public standing. Hun Sen’s historical revisionism is an attempt to lift up Cambodians’ opinions of China—another example of Hun Sen’s fealty toward Beijing.
In rewriting history, Hun Sen is also following Beijing’s lead. Xi is focused on projecting China’s supremacy by diminishing past failures, including the fall of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent Sino-Vietnamese War. China ordered a punitive invasion of Vietnam after it invaded Cambodia in December 1978 and forced the Khmer Rouge out of Phnom Penh, causing Beijing to lose its proxy state. The Sino-Vietnamese War was disastrous for China: At least 20,000 Chinese soldiers died in the first month, and a cease-fire was called. Vietnam occupied Cambodia for nearly a decade. China has omitted this history from its own books, with many university students unaware of the war and books about it refused publication.
In 2012, it briefly appeared that China would acknowledge its role in the rise of the Khmer Rouge. “When people mention the Khmer Rouge, many might be reminded of the support China once gave it. This is a problem that cannot be avoided,” an article in the state-run Global Times read. But Xi ascended to power two months later and embarked on a campaign against “historical nihilism”—anything critical of the party’s legacy or its leadership. Xi’s rewriting of history reflects Beijing’s desire to move beyond its so-called century of humiliation after the First Opium War. China’s failures in Cambodia, supporting a genocide and losing a proxy state, have simply been erased.
Hun Sen’s own historical whitewashing, which supplants Chinese wrongdoing with U.S. wrongdoing—its relentless Vietnam War-era bombing campaign—is designed to please Beijing. It also serves to bolster dwindling public support for China within Cambodia and to counter good will toward the United States. But if Hun Sen hopes to pave the way for increased Chinese influence in Cambodia, it will require at least some toleration from Cambodians.
So far, Xi has been more successful at rewriting history than Hun Sen. Many young Cambodians blame the prime minister for corruption, skyrocketing household debt, and lagging development despite Chinese investment. It remains to be seen if they will come to blame Cambodia’s genocide on the United States. Unless Cambodians come to trust their prime minister’s politicized praise, his historical revisionism looks unlikely to succeed.