foreignpolicy--2020-05-26--Taliban, Afghan Government Hint at Progress as Cease-Fire Expires

KABUL—Naveed Mohammed , 14 , doesn ’ t recall the rocket hitting his house or its explosion , but he remembers waking up covered in warm blood , his ears ringing , his legs hurting , two of his brothers lying by his side—covered in rubble , dead .
Mohammed was the lucky one in the family .
His mother ’ s injured right leg and arm had to be amputated—on the same day that his two brothers , a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old , were buried by their father .
The family ’ s house in Maidan Wardak was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government soldiers battled each other with new ferocity in the already violent province .
The rocket strike came a day after an attack on a Kabul maternity ward that killed 24 people—mostly women giving birth—and President Ashraf Ghani , in response , declared that security forces would be taking up an active defensive position against all militant groups again .
Now Mohammed ’ s grandfather , Mohammad Aziz , 70 , is hoping against hope that the kind of horrific crossfire in which his family , like so many in Afghanistan , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least , abate .
On Sunday , less than two weeks after the rocket attack , the family woke up to a surprise cease-fire , announced for the three days of the Islamic Eid al-Fitr holiday , the festival marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan .
The cessation of violence , officially announced by the Taliban on Saturday night , was reciprocated by Ghani , who later announced that he would facilitate the release of 2,000 Taliban prisoners over the coming days .
“ We want both sides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Aziz said .
“ I ’ ve lived the majority of my life in war , and it ’ s always civilians who suffer .
We hope this can be the beginning of the end of the war.
” But Aziz is skeptical .
“ We ’ re constantly afraid of the Taliban and their atrocities , ” he said .
His leeriness is shared by many Afghans affiliated with the government .
“ If the Taliban leaders really wanted to , they could end the violence and the killing … by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Koofi , one of the few Afghan women who will be part of the team taking up direct negotiations with the Taliban .
But she says the Taliban know that if they continue the truce , they could lose hold of their foot soldiers , and commanders could sacrifice control of their revenue .
“ The peace agreement with the U.S. further emboldened them to sustain their violent campaign to seek total victory over Afghan security forces , ” Koofi said .
“ The Taliban ’ s military leaders reference [ this victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them that they have defeated a superpower and the Afghan government would collapse shortly.
” A repeat of 2018 ’ s Eid cease-fire was particularly crucial this year because of the fragility of the current moment in the Afghan peace process , said the International Crisis Group ’ s Andrew Watkins , adding that U.S. fingerprints were all over the preparatory work to nudge it into place as “ violence , rhetoric , and disagreements all escalated in the past three months.
” The three-day break in fighting was welcomed by leaders worldwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that although difficult challenges remained on both fronts , he believed that they would be overcome “ so long as leaders on all sides make the right decisions and put the interest of their people first .
… This is a momentous opportunity that should not be missed.
” Afghans throughout the country have since called for the cease-fire to be extended , many of them taking to social media .
“ End the violence … so that we have space to breathe , ” tweeted Afghanistan ’ s Independent Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is ready to extend the cease-fire , ” National Security Council spokesperson Javid Faisal said , adding that he believed the Taliban were considering this possibility .
United Nations figures had seen a trend toward escalating civilian casualties in April from operations conducted by both the Taliban and the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces ( ANDSF ) .
Civilian casualties attributed to the Taliban were up by 25 percent in April compared with last year , while ANDSF civilian casualties were up 38 percent in the same timeframe .
Yet both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been seen as an opportunity to put stalled negotiations—initially planned for March 10—back on the agenda , even though a new date has not been confirmed and depends on the Afghan government releasing a total of 5,000 prisoners ahead of the talks .
Still , “ these are highly positive signs and an indication that perhaps momentum is shifting toward a peace process , ” said Scott Smith , an Afghanistan expert at the United States Institute of Peace , adding that so far the peace process had been U.S.-dictated , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to each other .
On Tuesday , the last day of the three-day cease-fire , Ghani ordered the release of 900 prisoners throughout the country , with people released in 19 out of the country ’ s 34 provinces .
At a government prison outside Bagram Air Base , the largest U.S. military base in the country , around 600 Taliban prisoners lined up on Tuesday ; with the facility hosting a total of about 3,000 of them , many stay in cells with 20-30 people .
The Taliban described the release as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hot sun , waiting for their turn to sign a waiver promising not to return to the battlefield anymore .
Once they leave the prison , they are free .
According to Nasifullah Totakhail , a member of the Afghan Defense Ministry ’ s release committee , about 17,000 Taliban prisoners were still held in government detention throughout the country .
But even among those freed , opinions seemed fragmented .
Abdul Basir , a 32-year-old political prisoner from the northern province of Faryab who had spent five years in detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ no matter how.
” “ The Taliban and the government need to come together .
It ’ s what our people deserve , ” he said , sitting in a bus full of prisoners , ready to take off toward Kabul , where the men are dropped off at long-distance bus terminals and are provided with enough cash to purchase a trip home .
Another man , Abdul Hak , 27 , wasn ’ t as optimistic .
Having spent more than five years at the prison , he regarded neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a step forward .
“ There won ’ t be peace in Afghanistan as long as the U.S. is still here , ” he said to a soldier from his window seat on the bus , his fingers gliding through his chain of prayer beads .
“ They must leave for things to improve.
” It is difficult to determine whether any of the released fighters will return to their previous positions .
“ We did our best to advise them and prepare them for life after prison , hoping they will keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Noorullah Kaderi , the prison ’ s military police commander .
“ The rest is up to them.
” For the family of Naveed Mohammed , it is difficult to know where the next attack will come from .
As he described it , they merely found themselves in the middle of a battlefield that the long civil war has turned so many towns and villages into .
“ The Taliban were hiding behind our house when government soldiers fired a rocket .
It destroyed our home .
Nothing is left , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a broken leg in the attack .
He has since relocated to his grandparents ’ house in Kabul .
He sits with his grandmother , who , pulling up photos of his brothers ’ dead bodies on her phone , tenderly kissed the screen , tears filling both her and Mohammed ’ s eyes .

KABUL—Naveed Mohammed, 14, doesn’t recall the rocket hitting his house or its explosion, but he remembers waking up covered in warm blood, his ears ringing, his legs hurting, two of his brothers lying by his side—covered in rubble, dead. Mohammed was the lucky one in the family. His mother’s injured right leg and arm had to be amputated—on the same day that his two brothers, a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old, were buried by their father.
KABUL—Naveed Mohammed, 14, doesn’t recall the rocket hitting his house or its explosion, but he remembers waking up covered in warm blood, his ears ringing, his legs hurting, two of his brothers lying by his side—covered in rubble, dead. Mohammed was the lucky one in the family. His mother’s injured right leg and arm had to be amputated—on the same day that his two brothers, a 6-year-old and a 16-year-old, were buried by their father.
The family’s house in Maidan Wardak was hit May 13 as Taliban and Afghan government soldiers battled each other with new ferocity in the already violent province. The rocket strike came a day after an attack on a Kabul maternity ward that killed 24 people—mostly women giving birth—and President Ashraf Ghani, in response, declared that security forces would be taking up an active defensive position against all militant groups again.
Now Mohammed’s grandfather, Mohammad Aziz, 70, is hoping against hope that the kind of horrific crossfire in which his family, like so many in Afghanistan, have been caught for so long will, at least, abate. On Sunday, less than two weeks after the rocket attack, the family woke up to a surprise cease-fire, announced for the three days of the Islamic Eid al-Fitr holiday, the festival marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. The cessation of violence, officially announced by the Taliban on Saturday night, was reciprocated by Ghani, who later announced that he would facilitate the release of 2,000 Taliban prisoners over the coming days.
Naveed Mohammed sits at his grandparents's home in Kabul on March 26 where he is recovering from a broken leg after his house in Maidan Wardak province was hit by a rocket.
“We want both sides to calm down and end this violence,” Aziz said. “I’ve lived the majority of my life in war, and it’s always civilians who suffer. We hope this can be the beginning of the end of the war.” But Aziz is skeptical. “We’re constantly afraid of the Taliban and their atrocities,” he said.
His leeriness is shared by many Afghans affiliated with the government. “If the Taliban leaders really wanted to, they could end the violence and the killing … by extending the truce,” said Fawzia Koofi, one of the few Afghan women who will be part of the team taking up direct negotiations with the Taliban. But she says the Taliban know that if they continue the truce, they could lose hold of their foot soldiers, and commanders could sacrifice control of their revenue.
“The peace agreement with the U.S. further emboldened them to sustain their violent campaign to seek total victory over Afghan security forces,” Koofi said. “The Taliban’s military leaders reference [this victory] to keep soldiers motivated, telling them that they have defeated a superpower and the Afghan government would collapse shortly.”
A repeat of 2018’s Eid cease-fire was particularly crucial this year because of the fragility of the current moment in the Afghan peace process, said the International Crisis Group’s Andrew Watkins, adding that U.S. fingerprints were all over the preparatory work to nudge it into place as “violence, rhetoric, and disagreements all escalated in the past three months.”
The three-day break in fighting was welcomed by leaders worldwide, with U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad saying that although difficult challenges remained on both fronts, he believed that they would be overcome “so long as leaders on all sides make the right decisions and put the interest of their people first. … This is a momentous opportunity that should not be missed.”
Afghans throughout the country have since called for the cease-fire to be extended, many of them taking to social media. “End the violence … so that we have space to breathe,” tweeted Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission Chairperson Shaharzad Akbar.
“The government is ready to extend the cease-fire,” National Security Council spokesperson Javid Faisal said, adding that he believed the Taliban were considering this possibility.
United Nations figures had seen a trend toward escalating civilian casualties in April from operations conducted by both the Taliban and the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). Civilian casualties attributed to the Taliban were up by 25 percent in April compared with last year, while ANDSF civilian casualties were up 38 percent in the same timeframe.
Yet both the short cease-fire and the prisoner release have been seen as an opportunity to put stalled negotiations—initially planned for March 10—back on the agenda, even though a new date has not been confirmed and depends on the Afghan government releasing a total of 5,000 prisoners ahead of the talks.
Still, “these are highly positive signs and an indication that perhaps momentum is shifting toward a peace process,” said Scott Smith, an Afghanistan expert at the United States Institute of Peace, adding that so far the peace process had been U.S.-dictated, with the goal to get Afghans to talk to each other.
On Tuesday, the last day of the three-day cease-fire, Ghani ordered the release of 900 prisoners throughout the country, with people released in 19 out of the country’s 34 provinces. At a government prison outside Bagram Air Base, the largest U.S. military base in the country, around 600 Taliban prisoners lined up on Tuesday; with the facility hosting a total of about 3,000 of them, many stay in cells with 20-30 people. The Taliban described the release as “good progress.”
Prisoners sign or fingerprint a declaration saying that they won't return to the battlefield as they are freed from prison near Kabul on May 26. Each receives 5,000 Afghani ( USD) for food and their journey home.
They stood quietly in the hot sun, waiting for their turn to sign a waiver promising not to return to the battlefield anymore. Once they leave the prison, they are free.
According to Nasifullah Totakhail, a member of the Afghan Defense Ministry’s release committee, about 17,000 Taliban prisoners were still held in government detention throughout the country.
But even among those freed, opinions seemed fragmented. Abdul Basir, a 32-year-old political prisoner from the northern province of Faryab who had spent five years in detention, said he wanted to see peace, “no matter how.”
“The Taliban and the government need to come together. It’s what our people deserve,” he said, sitting in a bus full of prisoners, ready to take off toward Kabul, where the men are dropped off at long-distance bus terminals and are provided with enough cash to purchase a trip home.
Taliban prisoners wait for their release at a government prison north of Kabul on May 26. Stefanie Glinski for Foreign Policy
Another man, Abdul Hak, 27, wasn’t as optimistic. Having spent more than five years at the prison, he regarded neither the cease-fire nor the prisoner release as a step forward.
“There won’t be peace in Afghanistan as long as the U.S. is still here,” he said to a soldier from his window seat on the bus, his fingers gliding through his chain of prayer beads. “They must leave for things to improve.”
It is difficult to determine whether any of the released fighters will return to their previous positions.
“We did our best to advise them and prepare them for life after prison, hoping they will keep their word,” explained Maj. Gen. Noorullah Kaderi, the prison’s military police commander. “The rest is up to them.”
For the family of Naveed Mohammed, it is difficult to know where the next attack will come from. As he described it, they merely found themselves in the middle of a battlefield that the long civil war has turned so many towns and villages into.
“The Taliban were hiding behind our house when government soldiers fired a rocket. It destroyed our home. Nothing is left,” said Mohammed, who suffered minor burns and a broken leg in the attack. He has since relocated to his grandparents’ house in Kabul. He sits with his grandmother, who, pulling up photos of his brothers’ dead bodies on her phone, tenderly kissed the screen, tears filling both her and Mohammed’s eyes.


foreignpolicy--2020-05-26--Pentagon Escalates Rhetoric in Libya as Russian Planes Arrive

The U.S. Department of Defense said on Tuesday that Russia had deployed fighter aircraft to Libya in an effort to back up state-sponsored military contractors , a move that defense officials say could be aimed at tilting the scales in the war-torn country toward a Moscow-backed warlord .
In a rare publicly released assessment , U.S. Africa Command said that Russian MiG-29 fighter jets had arrived in Libya from Syria and had been repainted to hide their Russian markings .
“ Russia is clearly trying to tip the scales in its favor in Libya .
Just like I saw them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their military footprint in Africa using government-supported mercenary groups like Wagner , ” Gen. Stephen Townsend , the Germany-based chief of U.S. Africa Command , said in a statement .
Townsend referred to a recent declaration from the eastern Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar , who is receiving Russian military backing for his offensive to take over the nation ’ s capital of Tripoli , which is held by the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord .
“ The world heard Mr. Haftar declare he was about to unleash a new air campaign .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aircraft to bomb Libyans , ” Townsend said .
Experts said the Pentagon ’ s decision to publicly confront Russia over the deployment of the MiG fighter jets , which appears to be Moscow ’ s response to the large surge of Turkish-supported militia fighters who have entered the conflict , could be a major policy shift for the Trump administration .
Until now , the administration has been reluctant to intervene in a conflict that U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s predecessor , Barack Obama , has called one of his biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignored since the departure of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton last year .
The Pentagon “ is essentially talking red line here , ” Jalel Harchaoui , a research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague , told Foreign Policy .
“ This is really the Pentagon trying to scare the White House into taking some kind of action.
” Gen. Jeff Harrigian , the head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa , warned in a Monday statement that Russia could seize bases on Libya ’ s coast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that could prevent American overflights .
“ If that day comes , it will create very real security concerns on Europe ’ s southern flank , ” Harrigian said .
But any military response could come under a NATO flag , Harchaoui said , by mobilizing Navy assets or bulking up on efforts to deter Russian landings .
The rare release of detailed imagery of Russian fighter jets that reportedly flew into the country from Syria comes after months of speculation about a new Trump administration strategy for Libya that has yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump signaled support for the eastern warlord Haftar ’ s advance on the capital of Tripoli last year after a White House visit from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi , who pushed for the intervention , the U.S. administration later snubbed the strongman and former CIA asset as it charted a policy shift .
The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are also backing Haftar .
A U.N. report released in December 2019 accused Jordan , Turkey , and the United Arab Emirates of violating a weakly enforced arms embargo .
Last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mercenaries into Libya led top U.S. officials to denounce Moscow ’ s support of Haftar after months of attempts from the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord to get clarity on the administration ’ s position .
But Trump himself has said little apart from declaring , while appearing alongside then-Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni at a White House news conference in 2017 , that he did not see a U.S. “ role in Libya.
” The U.S. president , who campaigned on and has sought to implement a scale-down of the U.S. military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is especially preoccupied these days with the coronavirus pandemic and his campaign for reelection in November .
“ This is not a high priority for the administration , and certainly not [ Trump ] , ” Andrew Miller , a National Security Council director for Egypt and Israel military issues during the Obama administration , told Foreign Policy .
“ The intervention and the statements were driven by some degree by Bolton who is no longer there.
” But even Trump ’ s predecessor , Obama , conceded that policy failures in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from eight years in the White House .
In his final months in office , Obama told Fox News that his worst mistake was failing to plan for the repercussions of Muammar al-Qaddafi ’ s fall in Libya amid the 2011 Arab Spring protests , after a NATO-endorsed coalition set up a no-fly zone to prevent the killing of anti-government rebels .
Ever since , Libya has fallen into a complex web of warring factions .
The United States has made an effort to salvage a counterterrorism policy based on fighting the Islamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Haftar ’ s bloody offensive .
U.S. Marines left the country amid the general ’ s advance on the capital of Tripoli that began in April 2019 .
Though the U.N. Security Council endorsed the recommendations of a conference in Berlin that called for a political solution to Libya ’ s war in February over Russian objections , the long-running peace process was dealt another blow in March when U.N. envoy for Libya Ghassan Salame resigned , citing health concerns .
The war-torn country has also struggled to contain the spread of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported just 75 cases and three deaths related to the coronavirus , humanitarian groups expect the true infection numbers are much higher , given the difficulty of accessing testing kits in an active war zone .
“ We ’ ve seen increased crackdowns on public criticism of the health response in the east , including statements from authorities threatening detention and calling critics traitors , ” said Megan Doherty , the senior director for policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps .
“ NGOs are struggling to get permissions and access to reach people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been displaced by the fighting , Doherty said , and many of them live in shared homes , which has made it difficult or impossible to self-isolate .
The U.N. has also said that humanitarian access remains challenging : Aid groups reported 851 constraints to access in March , 70 percent of those relating to bureaucratic delays such as visa processing for international workers , while another 19 percent of barriers were caused by stringent COVID-19 curfews and movement prohibitions put in place by Libyan authorities .
The introduction of Russian warplanes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to salvage U.S. policy and the humanitarian situation , former U.S. officials say .
“ This is profoundly disruptive to efforts to save lives , ” a former U.S. official told Foreign Policy .
“ This is a time when hospitals need to prepare to treat COVID patients and they ’ re being hit by rockets .
”

The U.S. Department of Defense said on Tuesday that Russia had deployed fighter aircraft to Libya in an effort to back up state-sponsored military contractors, a move that defense officials say could be aimed at tilting the scales in the war-torn country toward a Moscow-backed warlord.
The U.S. Department of Defense said on Tuesday that Russia had deployed fighter aircraft to Libya in an effort to back up state-sponsored military contractors, a move that defense officials say could be aimed at tilting the scales in the war-torn country toward a Moscow-backed warlord.
In a rare publicly released assessment, U.S. Africa Command said that Russian MiG-29 fighter jets had arrived in Libya from Syria and had been repainted to hide their Russian markings.
“Russia is clearly trying to tip the scales in its favor in Libya. Just like I saw them doing in Syria, they are expanding their military footprint in Africa using government-supported mercenary groups like Wagner,” Gen. Stephen Townsend, the Germany-based chief of U.S. Africa Command, said in a statement.
Townsend referred to a recent declaration from the eastern Libyan warlord Khalifa Haftar, who is receiving Russian military backing for his offensive to take over the nation’s capital of Tripoli, which is held by the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord.
“The world heard Mr. Haftar declare he was about to unleash a new air campaign. That will be Russian mercenary pilots flying Russian-supplied aircraft to bomb Libyans,” Townsend said.
Experts said the Pentagon’s decision to publicly confront Russia over the deployment of the MiG fighter jets, which appears to be Moscow’s response to the large surge of Turkish-supported militia fighters who have entered the conflict, could be a major policy shift for the Trump administration.
Until now, the administration has been reluctant to intervene in a conflict that U.S. President Donald Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, has called one of his biggest policy errors and that has been largely ignored since the departure of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton last year.
The Pentagon “is essentially talking red line here,” Jalel Harchaoui, a research fellow at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, told Foreign Policy. “This is really the Pentagon trying to scare the White House into taking some kind of action.”
Gen. Jeff Harrigian, the head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa, warned in a Monday statement that Russia could seize bases on Libya’s coast, allowing them to deploy air defense batteries that could prevent American overflights. “If that day comes, it will create very real security concerns on Europe’s southern flank,” Harrigian said.
But any military response could come under a NATO flag, Harchaoui said, by mobilizing Navy assets or bulking up on efforts to deter Russian landings.
The rare release of detailed imagery of Russian fighter jets that reportedly flew into the country from Syria comes after months of speculation about a new Trump administration strategy for Libya that has yet to see the light of day.
While Trump signaled support for the eastern warlord Haftar’s advance on the capital of Tripoli last year after a White House visit from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who pushed for the intervention, the U.S. administration later snubbed the strongman and former CIA asset as it charted a policy shift. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are also backing Haftar. A U.N. report released in December 2019 accused Jordan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates of violating a weakly enforced arms embargo.
Last year, the introduction of Russian Wagner Group mercenaries into Libya led top U.S. officials to denounce Moscow’s support of Haftar after months of attempts from the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord to get clarity on the administration’s position.
But Trump himself has said little apart from declaring, while appearing alongside then-Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni at a White House news conference in 2017, that he did not see a U.S. “role in Libya.” The U.S. president, who campaigned on and has sought to implement a scale-down of the U.S. military presence in many parts of the world, is especially preoccupied these days with the coronavirus pandemic and his campaign for reelection in November.
“This is not a high priority for the administration, and certainly not [Trump],” Andrew Miller, a National Security Council director for Egypt and Israel military issues during the Obama administration, told Foreign Policy. “The intervention and the statements were driven by some degree by Bolton who is no longer there.”
But even Trump’s predecessor, Obama, conceded that policy failures in Libya were one of his greatest regrets from eight years in the White House. In his final months in office, Obama told Fox News that his worst mistake was failing to plan for the repercussions of Muammar al-Qaddafi’s fall in Libya amid the 2011 Arab Spring protests, after a NATO-endorsed coalition set up a no-fly zone to prevent the killing of anti-government rebels.
Ever since, Libya has fallen into a complex web of warring factions. The United States has made an effort to salvage a counterterrorism policy based on fighting the Islamic State, but it has been challenged by Haftar’s bloody offensive. U.S. Marines left the country amid the general’s advance on the capital of Tripoli that began in April 2019.
Though the U.N. Security Council endorsed the recommendations of a conference in Berlin that called for a political solution to Libya’s war in February over Russian objections, the long-running peace process was dealt another blow in March when U.N. envoy for Libya Ghassan Salame resigned, citing health concerns.
The war-torn country has also struggled to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. Though Libya has reported just 75 cases and three deaths related to the coronavirus, humanitarian groups expect the true infection numbers are much higher, given the difficulty of accessing testing kits in an active war zone.
“We’ve seen increased crackdowns on public criticism of the health response in the east, including statements from authorities threatening detention and calling critics traitors,” said Megan Doherty, the senior director for policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps. “NGOs are struggling to get permissions and access to reach people in need.” More than 150,000 Libyans have been displaced by the fighting, Doherty said, and many of them live in shared homes, which has made it difficult or impossible to self-isolate.
The U.N. has also said that humanitarian access remains challenging: Aid groups reported 851 constraints to access in March, 70 percent of those relating to bureaucratic delays such as visa processing for international workers, while another 19 percent of barriers were caused by stringent COVID-19 curfews and movement prohibitions put in place by Libyan authorities.
The introduction of Russian warplanes into the conflict could further frustrate efforts to salvage U.S. policy and the humanitarian situation, former U.S. officials say.
“This is profoundly disruptive to efforts to save lives,” a former U.S. official told Foreign Policy. “This is a time when hospitals need to prepare to treat COVID patients and they’re being hit by rockets.”


foreignpolicy--2020-05-26--Canada’s Gun Laws Are Only as Good as Its Neighbor’s

Canada ’ s Gun Laws Are Only as Good as Its Neighbor ’ s It was Canada ’ s worst mass shooting in decades .
Late on Saturday , April 18 , Gabriel Wortman attacked his then-girlfriend after a small house party in Portapique , Nova Scotia .
That act of domestic violence , in a tiny rural community about an hour and a half outside the provincial capital of Halifax , set off a horrific killing spree that shocked the country .
The massacre has both renewed calls for increased gun control and highlighted how the flow of guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermine even the strictest restrictions .
As Canadians wait for answers , the public has turned toward just how Wortman was able to amass so much firepower .
“ Some of the witnesses we have interviewed since that time have told us about a significant number of weapons , ” Darren Campbell , the Nova Scotia superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP ) , said in a press conference last month .
During the shooting , Wortman used several semi-automatic handguns and two semi-automatic rifles—at least one could be described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fires set at his home have destroyed vital evidence , but police say one weapon was obtained in Canada while others were obtained in the United States .
The killings put an inflection point on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s plans to bring in new gun control measures , including “ red flag ” laws , which would allow police to confiscate weapons from individuals who may be a threat and ban them from purchasing new guns .
The governing Liberal Party had planned that new legislation for this spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was derailed by the outbreak of COVID-19 .
On Friday , May 1 , the Trudeau government announced it would ban some 1,500 semi-automatic and military-style rifles as a first step .
Yet Wortman , police say , had no gun license , meaning he was already flouting existing firearms restrictions .
That he was able to obtain so many weapons , though , exposes the core problem at the heart of Canada ’ s firearms laws : the United States .
Canada does not have the same kind of gun culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hardly trigger-shy .
A study by the Small Arms Survey estimates that the United States has roughly 120 civilian-held firearms for every 100 Americans , the highest per capita rate in the world .
Canada sits at fifth , with 34 guns per 100 citizens .
Hunting is a rite of passage for many Canadians , and shooting ranges are a common site in many parts of the country .
The prevalence of gun-related injury and death is about five times higher in the United States than in Canada—its gun laws are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s firearm licensing regime , weapons fall into one of three categories : nonrestricted , covering more rifles and shotguns ; restricted , covering some handguns and semi-automatic weapons ; and prohibited , which bans many types of handguns and all automatic weapons .
Anyone looking to buy or own a gun in Canada is required to obtain a license—restricted weapons require that the owner be a sport shooter or declare it as part of a collection .
There are numerous exceptions and grandfather clauses in those rules .
There are problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask , it is an arbitrary and byzantine regulatory nightmare or a haphazard and loophole-filled mess .
But it generally makes buying a weapon without a license very difficult .
So , for decades , Canadians have sought weapons from their southern neighbor to skirt Ottawa ’ s restrictions .
A Globe and Mail investigation found that , while numbers were sketchy , many illegal weapons seized by police had been obtained in the United States—the numbers were particularly stark in Toronto , where some 70 percent were American-sourced .
Organized crime and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years , are enabled by smuggling and gun-running networks in both countries .
That ’ s what makes the Nova Scotia shooting particularly worrisome : Wortman , a denturist , did not appear to have any criminal ties .
Yet it seems he was able to obtain significant firepower just south of the border .
The RCMP have not said , yet , whether Wortman has U.S. citizenship or residency .
Nonresidents are legally barred from purchasing firearms in the United States , and Canadians are not permitted to bring a weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how effectively both of those requirements are enforced is the real question .
Canada shares a border with New Hampshire , which holds an “ F ” from the Giffords Law Center for its lax gun laws .
Canada shares a border with New Hampshire , which holds an “ F ” from the Giffords Law Center for its lax gun laws .
Private dealers , in particular , are not required to perform background checks—an opportunity for gun-shopping Canadians .
( A bill to implement those checks was vetoed in 2019 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local Nova Scotia gossip magazine Frank interviewed Wortman ’ s father in April , who told the magazine that Wortman had ordered at least one handgun to a friend ’ s address in Maine “ then smuggled it back into the country.
” In many states , it can be as simple as obtaining a state hunting license , which is possible for Canadians .
( Eight Chinese students at the University of Arizona were able to purchase weapons in 2017 after obtaining a state hunting license . )
Several of these “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairly easy for Canadians to buy American weapons that are otherwise not allowed north of the border .
It ’ s grimly fitting that Canada ’ s worst-ever instance of gun violence took place right along the border , in Cypress Hills , Saskatchewan .
In 1873 , a group of American and Canadian hunters surrounded an indigenous encampment , believing the residents had stolen their horses .
The settlers opened fire and stormed into the camp , executing virtually everyone in their sight .
Modern estimates put the death toll at 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ died that night .
Today , getting guns across the border is risky but not hard .
Canadian border agents seize upwards of 600 firearms a year at the border—the Canadian government even began a public relations campaign , imploring Americans to leave their guns at home .
It is likely that many more weapons pass through the U.S.-Canada land borders , where most vehicles are not searched .
It ’ s not just Canada ’ s problem .
While U.S. politicians often speak of the importation of drug-related violence from Mexico into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neglect America ’ s role in exporting weapons south .
The U.S. Justice Department ’ s Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives reports that nearly half of all firearms recovered in Mexico and traced by the bureau were purchased in the United States .
But even if the weapons entered the country illegally , blaming the United States alone won ’ t fix the complex issues around guns in Canada .
Mass shootings aren ’ t unknown in Canada itself , even if they ’ re far less common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were committed with perfectly legal weapons .
In 2017 , Alexandre Bissonnette walked into the Grande Mosquée de Québec , in the provincial capital , and targeted worshippers during evening prayers , killing six .
The main weapon used in the assault , a Czech Small Arms VZ .
58 Sporter rifle , is a semi-automatic military rifle that resembles an AK-47 and is perfectly legal to purchase .
Biossnnette had a firearms license that allowed him to carry his rifle and handgun .
Other attacks show that the licensing rules are fairly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Roszko targeted RCMP officers who responded to a call on his farm near Mayerthorpe , Alberta , killing four .
Roszko had amassed a stockpile of weapons from various sources—some were purchased legally by others , and some were stolen , while one pistol had been smuggled to Canada from Utah .
Trudeau is promising that greater gun control measures are still slated to be introduced in the coming months .
He has said anti-smuggling measures would be part of that package but did not provide details .
Wortman ’ s attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Canada ’ s gun laws are only as good as its neighbor ’ s .
As long as one state continues to make it easy for virtually anyone to purchase weapons , especially high-powered semi-automatic rifles and handguns , any attempts by the other state to crack down will be significantly weaker .

It was Canada’s worst mass shooting in decades.
Late on Saturday, April 18, Gabriel Wortman attacked his then-girlfriend after a small house party in Portapique, Nova Scotia. That act of domestic violence, in a tiny rural community about an hour and a half outside the provincial capital of Halifax, set off a horrific killing spree that shocked the country. The massacre has both renewed calls for increased gun control and highlighted how the flow of guns between the United States and Canada can undermine even the strictest restrictions.
As Canadians wait for answers, the public has turned toward just how Wortman was able to amass so much firepower.
“Some of the witnesses we have interviewed since that time have told us about a significant number of weapons,” Darren Campbell, the Nova Scotia superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), said in a press conference last month. During the shooting, Wortman used several semi-automatic handguns and two semi-automatic rifles—at least one could be described as an assault-style rifle, police said. The fires set at his home have destroyed vital evidence, but police say one weapon was obtained in Canada while others were obtained in the United States.
The killings put an inflection point on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s plans to bring in new gun control measures, including “red flag” laws, which would allow police to confiscate weapons from individuals who may be a threat and ban them from purchasing new guns. The governing Liberal Party had planned that new legislation for this spring, but, like much else, it was derailed by the outbreak of COVID-19.
On Friday, May 1, the Trudeau government announced it would ban some 1,500 semi-automatic and military-style rifles as a first step. Yet Wortman, police say, had no gun license, meaning he was already flouting existing firearms restrictions. That he was able to obtain so many weapons, though, exposes the core problem at the heart of Canada’s firearms laws: the United States.
Canada does not have the same kind of gun culture as its southern neighbor, but it is hardly trigger-shy. A study by the Small Arms Survey estimates that the United States has roughly 120 civilian-held firearms for every 100 Americans, the highest per capita rate in the world. Canada sits at fifth, with 34 guns per 100 citizens. Hunting is a rite of passage for many Canadians, and shooting ranges are a common site in many parts of the country.
The prevalence of gun-related injury and death is about five times higher in the United States than in Canada—its gun laws are undoubtedly a factor.
Under Canada’s firearm licensing regime, weapons fall into one of three categories: nonrestricted, covering more rifles and shotguns; restricted, covering some handguns and semi-automatic weapons; and prohibited, which bans many types of handguns and all automatic weapons. Anyone looking to buy or own a gun in Canada is required to obtain a license—restricted weapons require that the owner be a sport shooter or declare it as part of a collection. There are numerous exceptions and grandfather clauses in those rules.
There are problems with that system. Depending on who you ask, it is an arbitrary and byzantine regulatory nightmare or a haphazard and loophole-filled mess. But it generally makes buying a weapon without a license very difficult. So, for decades, Canadians have sought weapons from their southern neighbor to skirt Ottawa’s restrictions. A Globe and Mail investigation found that, while numbers were sketchy, many illegal weapons seized by police had been obtained in the United States—the numbers were particularly stark in Toronto, where some 70 percent were American-sourced.
Organized crime and gang shootings, which have increased in recent years, are enabled by smuggling and gun-running networks in both countries. That’s what makes the Nova Scotia shooting particularly worrisome: Wortman, a denturist, did not appear to have any criminal ties. Yet it seems he was able to obtain significant firepower just south of the border.
The RCMP have not said, yet, whether Wortman has U.S. citizenship or residency. Nonresidents are legally barred from purchasing firearms in the United States, and Canadians are not permitted to bring a weapon into Canada without a license, but how effectively both of those requirements are enforced is the real question.
Canada shares a border with New Hampshire, which holds an “F” from the Giffords Law Center for its lax gun laws.
Canada shares a border with New Hampshire, which holds an “F” from the Giffords Law Center for its lax gun laws. Private dealers, in particular, are not required to perform background checks—an opportunity for gun-shopping Canadians. (A bill to implement those checks was vetoed in 2019 by Gov. Chris Sununu.) The local Nova Scotia gossip magazine Frank interviewed Wortman’s father in April, who told the magazine that Wortman had ordered at least one handgun to a friend’s address in Maine “then smuggled it back into the country.”
In many states, it can be as simple as obtaining a state hunting license, which is possible for Canadians. (Eight Chinese students at the University of Arizona were able to purchase weapons in 2017 after obtaining a state hunting license.) Several of these “gun tourism” states would make it fairly easy for Canadians to buy American weapons that are otherwise not allowed north of the border.
It’s grimly fitting that Canada’s worst-ever instance of gun violence took place right along the border, in Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan. In 1873, a group of American and Canadian hunters surrounded an indigenous encampment, believing the residents had stolen their horses. The settlers opened fire and stormed into the camp, executing virtually everyone in their sight. Modern estimates put the death toll at 23, although some evidence suggests many more died that night.
Today, getting guns across the border is risky but not hard. Canadian border agents seize upwards of 600 firearms a year at the border—the Canadian government even began a public relations campaign, imploring Americans to leave their guns at home. It is likely that many more weapons pass through the U.S.-Canada land borders, where most vehicles are not searched.
It’s not just Canada’s problem. While U.S. politicians often speak of the importation of drug-related violence from Mexico into the United States, they tend to neglect America’s role in exporting weapons south. The U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reports that nearly half of all firearms recovered in Mexico and traced by the bureau were purchased in the United States.
But even if the weapons entered the country illegally, blaming the United States alone won’t fix the complex issues around guns in Canada. Mass shootings aren’t unknown in Canada itself, even if they’re far less common than in the United States. Some were committed with perfectly legal weapons. In 2017, Alexandre Bissonnette walked into the Grande Mosquée de Québec, in the provincial capital, and targeted worshippers during evening prayers, killing six. The main weapon used in the assault, a Czech Small Arms VZ. 58 Sporter rifle, is a semi-automatic military rifle that resembles an AK-47 and is perfectly legal to purchase. Biossnnette had a firearms license that allowed him to carry his rifle and handgun.
Other attacks show that the licensing rules are fairly easy to exploit. In 2005, James Roszko targeted RCMP officers who responded to a call on his farm near Mayerthorpe, Alberta, killing four. Roszko had amassed a stockpile of weapons from various sources—some were purchased legally by others, and some were stolen, while one pistol had been smuggled to Canada from Utah.
Trudeau is promising that greater gun control measures are still slated to be introduced in the coming months. He has said anti-smuggling measures would be part of that package but did not provide details.
Wortman’s attack highlights what has been a long-simmering problem: Canada’s gun laws are only as good as its neighbor’s. As long as one state continues to make it easy for virtually anyone to purchase weapons, especially high-powered semi-automatic rifles and handguns, any attempts by the other state to crack down will be significantly weaker.


foreignpolicy--2020-05-26--No, the Pandemic Will Not Bring Jobs Back From China

No , the Pandemic Will Not Bring Jobs Back From China No idea has been more central to U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s philosophy of “ America first ” than bringing jobs back home .
In his 2017 inaugural address , he lamented that “ one by one , the factories shuttered and left our shores , with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.
” Under his presidency , a newly elected Trump promised , “ we will bring back our jobs.
” Lighthizer cast the pandemic as an overdue comeuppance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lower-wage countries .
More than three years later and in the most unlikely of scenarios—a pandemic that has killed 100,000 Americans and destroyed more U.S. jobs than any time since the Great Depression—the Trump administration finally believes its opportunity has come .
The disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic , U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer wrote earlier this month , has left U.S. companies with no choice but to “ bring the jobs back to America.
” Lighthizer cast the pandemic as an overdue comeuppance for U.S. companies that had offshored production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire for ‘ efficiency.
’ ” Lighthizer was echoing another top official , Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross , who had said in January—when the new coronavirus still appeared to be confined to China—that it would “ help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America.
” The administration seems to have been working overtime to make prophets out of these two men , and it has landed some big fish .
Last week , Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing announced it would build a new chip fabrication plant in Arizona that will partially reduce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are critical for defense and industry .
The federal government has also awarded $ 354 million to a Virginia start-up that will produce generic drugs and their ingredients , including those used to treat COVID-19 , in the United States .
Peter Navarro , the third member of Trump ’ s nationalist trade triumvirate , touted the production decision as “ a great day for America .
This has all of the elements of the Trump strategy .
It ’ s made in the USA .
It ’ s innovation that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pollution havens , sweatshops , and tax havens of the world.
” The concern over manufacturing jobs lost to China and other countries certainly has merit .
U.S. leaders , especially after China ’ s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 , had long been inexcusably dismissive of job losses caused by offshoring and imports .
Whether one blames Chinese imports for roughly half of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost in the past two decades , or for fewer ( there are still furious debates among economists ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has tied the loss of good jobs to the breakdown of families and rising opioid addiction , and he was right to do so .
Whether one blames Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping for the deterioration in U.S.-China relations , a fundamental reassessment of U.S. supply-chain vulnerabilities is long overdue .
The administration ’ s signature actions on trade—imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum , renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico , pursuing a trade war with China—were all crafted with an eye toward forcing U.S. companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
Since January 2018 , the average tariff rate on U.S. imports of Chinese goods has risen from just 3.1 percent to nearly 20 percent .
But will any of these efforts to bring production back work in the way Trump and his men are hoping ?
Putting aside the damaging foreign-policy consequences of an “ America first ” trade policy , the effort is flawed in two major ways .
First , the combination of trade war and the pandemic is unlikely to force companies to bring manufacturing operations back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And second , with the advances in automation , any such reshoring is unlikely to bring the promised benefits in terms of well-paying employment for Americans .
Three years into the trade war , those tariffs should already have forced many U.S. companies to relocate production from China .
Yet there is no evidence of any coronavirus-induced rush by companies to return operations to the United States .
Prior to the pandemic , many companies had already been reconfiguring supply chains to try to escape the tariff burden , but they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The most comprehensive data has been collected by Panjiva , an arm of S & P Global that closely tracks supply-chain movements , and it shows the winner of the trade war has been Southeast Asia—especially Vietnam .
Production of Google ’ s new Pixel 4A smartphone has largely been shifted from China to Vietnam , while Microsoft is now making the Surface tablet there as well .
Google is also expanding manufacturing of smart-home products in neighboring Thailand .
Foxconn , the Taiwanese company that assembles Apple ’ s iPhones in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vietnam as the new base for its consumer electronics exports to the United States .
Telecommunications products such as smartphones now account for more than 20 percent of Vietnam ’ s exports to the United States , double the share in 2015 .
The data shows no trend of companies moving production back to the United States .
Nor is there any indication of a U.S. manufacturing resurgence in the most recent Reshoring Index published by the management consultancy Kearney , which Lighthizer cited as proof that Trump ’ s policies have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade war had significantly reduced imports from China , which dropped by 17 percent between 2018 and 2019 .
Half of that hole was filled by other Asian countries and by Mexico .
Overall , manufacturing imports from China dropped by $ 90 billion , while imports rose by $ 13 billion from Mexico and by $ 31 billion from Asian countries that offer low-cost sourcing such as Vietnam .
U.S. manufacturing output stayed flat , with higher domestic sales offset by lower exports .
That performance is even more underwhelming given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration has gifted companies in an attempt to entice them to raise their U.S. investments .
Could the pandemic accelerate these shifts ?
In all likelihood , yes .
Chris Rogers , who heads global trade and logistics analysis for Panjiva , says the trade war has been a cost issue ; companies can choose to pass the tariff costs on to consumers or relocate production to escape those costs .
But the pandemic , he says , is a risk issue—border closures , transport shutdowns , and the growing use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to diversify sources of supply to guard against such disruptions .
The Kearney report similarly anticipates that “ the threat of future crises will compel companies to restructure their global supply chains with an eye toward increased resilience , as well as lower risks and costs , as resilience is the key to operating profitably in the face of ongoing disruptions.
” Could the United States be the winner from this second wave of relocations ?
“ It seems unlikely , ” Kearney concludes .
“ The limitations that held U.S. manufacturing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade war put Chinese manufacturing at a decided disadvantage , will continue to work against a U.S. manufacturing revival.
” Even if the pandemic somehow succeeds where the trade war has failed in bringing U.S. manufacturing home , would that truly help Americans by bringing back the days of generous wages and stable employment ?
The evidence suggests this is wishful thinking based on “ Make America Great Again ” nostalgia .
Manufacturing simply does not determine the conditions for the U.S. workforce the way it once did .
In 1970 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; today it is fewer than one in 10 .
Where companies are choosing to expand U.S. manufacturing operations , their new factories are heavily automated .
For example , LG Electronics , the South Korean company , recently built a new 1 million-square-foot plant in Clarksville , Tennessee , partly in response to the threat of tariffs the Trump administration slapped on imported South Korean washing machines in 2018 .
But inside the plant , most of the work is being done by industrial robots made by LG ’ s own Robostar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the pandemic is likely to accelerate the trend toward automation .
As Mark Muro and his colleagues at the Brookings Institution argue , automation happens in bursts , and the virus is likely to trigger a fresh round .
In economic shocks such as the one the world is currently experiencing , Muro and his co-authors write , “ humans become relatively more expensive as firms ’ revenues rapidly decline .
At these moments , employers shed less-skilled workers and replace them with technology and higher-skilled workers , which increases labor productivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , while some manufacturing may return to the United States due to the pandemic , the employment gains are likely to be modest at best .
Even small gains should not be dismissed .
The 600 or so jobs that LG is creating in Clarksville will be a boost to the city and its 160,000 residents .
And there are certainly sectors where the United States should be ensuring some level of domestic production for national security reasons .
The Reagan administration did similar things in the 1980s when it created the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the competitive challenge from Japanese chipmakers .
But none of this will transform the lives of American workers .
Trump ’ s trade advisors are trapped behind glasses that are every bit as rose-colored as their boss ’ s—a desperate longing for the good old days in which men ( and they were mostly men ) supported families by working on assembly lines and bending metal , and passed that legacy on to their sons .
But a 21st-century economy that provides good jobs for more Americans and protects vital public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manufacturing economy of the 1950s .
Consider for a moment the big corporate winner from the pandemic , Amazon .
It has built the most efficient distribution chain on the planet , which of course has left in its wake thousands of smaller retailers and their employees .
But in the current coronavirus lockdown , it feels like a blessing to be able to have the things we need miraculously dropped on our doorsteps the next day .
U.S. companies such as Zoom , Facebook , Microsoft , and Google are keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued education of our children ( admittedly inferior but certain to improve with time ) , and allowing contact with colleagues , friends , and family .
The pandemic has only accelerated the shift to the digital economy of the future , an economy in which the United States leads the world .
The real questions should be about how to spread the benefits of that success—to the Amazon distribution workers , the grocery cashiers , the meatpackers , the sanitary workers , the millions of others who are keeping the economy going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more who will return to low-wage service jobs when it starts back up .
There are many ideas on the table for how to reconstruct the social compact for the 21st century—from more progressive taxation to free college to lifelong learning to universal basic income—but none of them is being championed by the Trump administration .
For an administration that decries its opponents as “ socialists , ” Lighthizer and his comrades show a deep distrust of the underlying dynamism of the U.S. economy .
What is capitalism , after all , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The secret of U.S. economic success is Americans ’ endlessly restless pursuit to find better , more efficient ways to invent , produce , and deliver the goods and services people want .
To distrust that impulse is to distrust the motor force that built the greatest economy in the world .

No idea has been more central to U.S. President Donald Trump’s philosophy of “America first” than bringing jobs back home. In his 2017 inaugural address, he lamented that “one by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.” Under his presidency, a newly elected Trump promised, “we will bring back our jobs.”Lighthizer cast the pandemic as an overdue comeuppance for U.S. companies that had offshored production to lower-wage countries.
No idea has been more central to U.S. President Donald Trump’s philosophy of “America first” than bringing jobs back home. In his 2017 inaugural address, he lamented that “one by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.” Under his presidency, a newly elected Trump promised, “we will bring back our jobs.”Lighthizer cast the pandemic as an overdue comeuppance for U.S. companies that had offshored production to lower-wage countries.
More than three years later and in the most unlikely of scenarios—a pandemic that has killed 100,000 Americans and destroyed more U.S. jobs than any time since the Great Depression—the Trump administration finally believes its opportunity has come. The disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer wrote earlier this month, has left U.S. companies with no choice but to “bring the jobs back to America.” Lighthizer cast the pandemic as an overdue comeuppance for U.S. companies that had offshored production to lower-wage countries in a “lemming-like desire for ‘efficiency.’” Lighthizer was echoing another top official, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who had said in January—when the new coronavirus still appeared to be confined to China—that it would “help to accelerate the return of jobs to North America.”
The administration seems to have been working overtime to make prophets out of these two men, and it has landed some big fish. Last week, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing announced it would build a new chip fabrication plant in Arizona that will partially reduce U.S. dependence on Asia for advanced semiconductors that are critical for defense and industry. The federal government has also awarded $354 million to a Virginia start-up that will produce generic drugs and their ingredients, including those used to treat COVID-19, in the United States. Peter Navarro, the third member of Trump’s nationalist trade triumvirate, touted the production decision as “a great day for America. This has all of the elements of the Trump strategy. It’s made in the USA. It’s innovation that will allow American workers to compete with the pollution havens, sweatshops, and tax havens of the world.”
The concern over manufacturing jobs lost to China and other countries certainly has merit. U.S. leaders, especially after China’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001, had long been inexcusably dismissive of job losses caused by offshoring and imports. Whether one blames Chinese imports for roughly half of the 5 million manufacturing jobs lost in the past two decades, or for fewer (there are still furious debates among economists), the social costs have been enormous. Lighthizer has tied the loss of good jobs to the breakdown of families and rising opioid addiction, and he was right to do so.
Whether one blames Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping for the deterioration in U.S.-China relations, a fundamental reassessment of U.S. supply-chain vulnerabilities is long overdue. The administration’s signature actions on trade—imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, pursuing a trade war with China—were all crafted with an eye toward forcing U.S. companies to bring production back to the United States. Since January 2018, the average tariff rate on U.S. imports of Chinese goods has risen from just 3.1 percent to nearly 20 percent.
But will any of these efforts to bring production back work in the way Trump and his men are hoping? Putting aside the damaging foreign-policy consequences of an “America first” trade policy, the effort is flawed in two major ways. First, the combination of trade war and the pandemic is unlikely to force companies to bring manufacturing operations back to the United States on a significant scale. And second, with the advances in automation, any such reshoring is unlikely to bring the promised benefits in terms of well-paying employment for Americans.
Three years into the trade war, those tariffs should already have forced many U.S. companies to relocate production from China. Yet there is no evidence of any coronavirus-induced rush by companies to return operations to the United States. Prior to the pandemic, many companies had already been reconfiguring supply chains to try to escape the tariff burden, but they had returned little production to the United States. The most comprehensive data has been collected by Panjiva, an arm of S&P Global that closely tracks supply-chain movements, and it shows the winner of the trade war has been Southeast Asia—especially Vietnam. Production of Google’s new Pixel 4A smartphone has largely been shifted from China to Vietnam, while Microsoft is now making the Surface tablet there as well. Google is also expanding manufacturing of smart-home products in neighboring Thailand. Foxconn, the Taiwanese company that assembles Apple’s iPhones in China, has increasingly been moving to Vietnam as the new base for its consumer electronics exports to the United States. Telecommunications products such as smartphones now account for more than 20 percent of Vietnam’s exports to the United States, double the share in 2015. The data shows no trend of companies moving production back to the United States.
Nor is there any indication of a U.S. manufacturing resurgence in the most recent Reshoring Index published by the management consultancy Kearney, which Lighthizer cited as proof that Trump’s policies have been successful. Instead, Kearney found that the trade war had significantly reduced imports from China, which dropped by 17 percent between 2018 and 2019. Half of that hole was filled by other Asian countries and by Mexico. Overall, manufacturing imports from China dropped by $90 billion, while imports rose by $13 billion from Mexico and by $31 billion from Asian countries that offer low-cost sourcing such as Vietnam. U.S. manufacturing output stayed flat, with higher domestic sales offset by lower exports. That performance is even more underwhelming given the generous tax cuts and aggressive deregulation the Trump administration has gifted companies in an attempt to entice them to raise their U.S. investments.
Could the pandemic accelerate these shifts? In all likelihood, yes. Chris Rogers, who heads global trade and logistics analysis for Panjiva, says the trade war has been a cost issue; companies can choose to pass the tariff costs on to consumers or relocate production to escape those costs. But the pandemic, he says, is a risk issue—border closures, transport shutdowns, and the growing use of export restraints will likely force companies to diversify sources of supply to guard against such disruptions. The Kearney report similarly anticipates that “the threat of future crises will compel companies to restructure their global supply chains with an eye toward increased resilience, as well as lower risks and costs, as resilience is the key to operating profitably in the face of ongoing disruptions.” Could the United States be the winner from this second wave of relocations? “It seems unlikely,” Kearney concludes. “The limitations that held U.S. manufacturing to flat growth in 2019, even as the trade war put Chinese manufacturing at a decided disadvantage, will continue to work against a U.S. manufacturing revival.”
Even if the pandemic somehow succeeds where the trade war has failed in bringing U.S. manufacturing home, would that truly help Americans by bringing back the days of generous wages and stable employment? The evidence suggests this is wishful thinking based on “Make America Great Again” nostalgia.
Manufacturing simply does not determine the conditions for the U.S. workforce the way it once did. In 1970, one in four Americans worked in manufacturing; today it is fewer than one in 10. Where companies are choosing to expand U.S. manufacturing operations, their new factories are heavily automated. For example, LG Electronics, the South Korean company, recently built a new 1 million-square-foot plant in Clarksville, Tennessee, partly in response to the threat of tariffs the Trump administration slapped on imported South Korean washing machines in 2018. But inside the plant, most of the work is being done by industrial robots made by LG’s own Robostar affiliate in South Korea.
If anything, the pandemic is likely to accelerate the trend toward automation. As Mark Muro and his colleagues at the Brookings Institution argue, automation happens in bursts, and the virus is likely to trigger a fresh round. In economic shocks such as the one the world is currently experiencing, Muro and his co-authors write, “humans become relatively more expensive as firms’ revenues rapidly decline. At these moments, employers shed less-skilled workers and replace them with technology and higher-skilled workers, which increases labor productivity as a recession tapers off.”
In short, while some manufacturing may return to the United States due to the pandemic, the employment gains are likely to be modest at best. Even small gains should not be dismissed. The 600 or so jobs that LG is creating in Clarksville will be a boost to the city and its 160,000 residents. And there are certainly sectors where the United States should be ensuring some level of domestic production for national security reasons. The Reagan administration did similar things in the 1980s when it created the Sematech consortium and imposed tariffs to respond to the competitive challenge from Japanese chipmakers. But none of this will transform the lives of American workers. Trump’s trade advisors are trapped behind glasses that are every bit as rose-colored as their boss’s—a desperate longing for the good old days in which men (and they were mostly men) supported families by working on assembly lines and bending metal, and passed that legacy on to their sons. But a 21st-century economy that provides good jobs for more Americans and protects vital public health and security interests will not remotely resemble the manufacturing economy of the 1950s.
Consider for a moment the big corporate winner from the pandemic, Amazon. It has built the most efficient distribution chain on the planet, which of course has left in its wake thousands of smaller retailers and their employees. But in the current coronavirus lockdown, it feels like a blessing to be able to have the things we need miraculously dropped on our doorsteps the next day. U.S. companies such as Zoom, Facebook, Microsoft, and Google are keeping most of us connected, enabling the continued education of our children (admittedly inferior but certain to improve with time), and allowing contact with colleagues, friends, and family. The pandemic has only accelerated the shift to the digital economy of the future, an economy in which the United States leads the world.
The real questions should be about how to spread the benefits of that success—to the Amazon distribution workers, the grocery cashiers, the meatpackers, the sanitary workers, the millions of others who are keeping the economy going during the shutdown, and the millions more who will return to low-wage service jobs when it starts back up. There are many ideas on the table for how to reconstruct the social compact for the 21st century—from more progressive taxation to free college to lifelong learning to universal basic income—but none of them is being championed by the Trump administration.
For an administration that decries its opponents as “socialists,” Lighthizer and his comrades show a deep distrust of the underlying dynamism of the U.S. economy. What is capitalism, after all, if not a lemming-like desire for efficiency? The secret of U.S. economic success is Americans’ endlessly restless pursuit to find better, more efficient ways to invent, produce, and deliver the goods and services people want. To distrust that impulse is to distrust the motor force that built the greatest economy in the world.


foreignpolicy--2020-05-26--Are Hotels the Solution to Homelessness?

Are Hotels the Solution to Homelessness ?
Dale lies dying on an island in the Los Angeles River .
Beneath a haggard tent in a sandy encampment , a quarter-mile from a vegan takeout restaurant and several pricey coffee shops ( all now shuttered ) he struggles to rise from his bedroll .
A tattooed , taciturn man in his early 60s , he has stage 4 leukemia and tells me that nine months ago a doctor gave him six months to live .
It would sound hackneyed if it were not so obviously true .
Dale ’ s eyes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for soft food because his gums are too sore to eat properly .
His body shudders with every forced breath .
I met Dale while volunteering with SELAH , a local homelessness outreach organization , and have come down to the river to bring him a pack of Pall Mall Red 100s and to tell him that there is no news on trying to get him into Project Roomkey , California ’ s much-publicized initiative to house high-risk homeless people in vacant hotel rooms during the COVID-19 crisis .
The program was viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , neatly solving one problem—a pandemic-hit hotel sector—with another .
The reality has been very different .
California was suffering from a homelessness epidemic long before the viral one arrived , with more than half of the United States ’ unsheltered population living in the Golden State .
Officially , Los Angeles County is credited with some 59,000 people living homeless within its borders , of which some 44,000 are unsheltered , but residents and experts alike believe that the actual number is much higher .
Though homelessness has steadily increased in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 percent jump countywide , government solutions have , as a rule , never progressed beyond the lamentation phase .
In 2016 Angelenos approved a referendum to allot more than $ 1.2 billion to build housing for people without homes , but these projects have been agonizingly slow to develop , hindered by community opposition and unconscionable cost overruns .
That ’ s why the announcement in early April of Project Roomkey felt so revolutionary .
Unable to shelter in place , without sanitation facilities or often even access to clean water , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk during the pandemic .
Conventional shelters , with their open floor plans , offered similarly perilous opportunities for the spread of the virus .
The fear of mass deaths finally spurred the government into action , and with great fanfare Gov .
Gavin Newsom promised to house 15,000 homeless Californians for as long as the crisis lasted .
Perhaps inspired by California ’ s example , the United Kingdom proposed a similar initiative , promising to house rough sleepers throughout the country .
Paris , Berlin , Tokyo , and other cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pilot programs .
It ’ s easy to understand the enthusiasm .
Housing homeless people in unused hotels is the kind of common-sense solution for which activists have long been advocating , providing critical shelter for the most desperate while simultaneously aiding a beleaguered hospitality industry .
It was also an initiative that would have been fairly unthinkable before the pandemic , as the threat of the virus spurred government to an uncharacteristic urgency ( New York had longed housed the homeless in hotels , but as a stopgap for insufficient shelter space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed the authorities were making a sincere attempt to address a rapidly worsening crisis .
Unfortunately for Dale and the many thousands like him , there ’ s been a huge gulf between sincerity and effective action .
Of the 15,000 beds Los Angeles County promised to make available , as of May 26 less than 2,400 are actually occupied .
Project Roomkey has moved forward with agonizing lethargy as the most obviously suitable candidates struggle to find placement , even while government officials hurry to reopen the economy .
The culprit is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposition from entrenched interests , and a general lack of commitment from civic leaders .
In part , Project Roomkey suffers from the complex web of bureaucracy used to implement its policies .
Although theoretically a state-run initiative , the project is funded mostly by the federal government and executed by the counties , making for a bewildering array of institutions with some role in the process .
There is no system of mass enrollment , and in practice candidates are still forced to work through the same desperately overstretched network of case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the program individuals are required to undergo an elaborate intake process , always difficult among a far-flung population often lacking cell phones and generally wary of authority , but now made all but impossible as most outreach workers have been called out of the field for fear of spreading the virus .
Hotels have been slow to offer their services , and most of the partner properties are smaller establishments .
Despite an average occupancy rate of 20 percent , and after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city , larger hotels are leery of offering up rooms to the unhoused for insurance and safety reasons—although the program includes on-site security and case management , as well as guaranteeing compensation for any errant property damage .
Neighbors have likewise objected to the image of people without homes living in luxury accommodations .
Critics insist that the issue is fundamentally one of political will .
They point out that the mayor could , at any point , commandeer the unused hotel rooms and bypass the current process altogether , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these strange days , there is only so much elected officials are willing to do antagonize propertied interests in service of the unhoused , who rarely vote and don ’ t generally pay taxes .
It ’ s unclear whether the difficulties plaguing Project Roomkey represent a broader failure of the model or reflect the peculiarities of California ’ s circumstances—though early signs would suggest the former .
The budget for a similar program is London has already been exhausted .
Paris , like Los Angeles , has struggled to find accommodations for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the reality that even the most lavish budgets did not account for the ever-lengthening timeline of the pandemic .
As we move from the theoretical clarity of a shelter-in-place order to whatever murkier reality will replace it , the voices calling the matter finished and pushing for a return to the status quo grow louder .
Except that the status quo has been changed irrevocably .
The dire economic effects of COVID-19 will swell the number of people living unhoused , particularly in the United States , where as many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to paycheck and social services are strained where they are not altogether absent .
In a year ’ s time we might see our homelessness numbers double , shantytowns metastasizing across great metropolises—Trumptowns , like the Hoovervilles of the 1930s .
Should this happen , the clamor for dramatic action such as Project Roomkey initially promised may well prove deafening .
In the meantime , Dale continues to wait .
Many of the charities and food banks he relies upon have closed , and increased security restrictions around supermarkets have made it more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major source of sustenance .
He was taken to the hospital several days ago for shortness of breath , but released the next morning .
He accepts my small offerings and listens to my grim updates , but apart from that is cagey and quiet .
I sense that he has grown tired of seeing me , of my anxious apologies and false promises .
I can not say I blame him .

Dale lies dying on an island in the Los Angeles River. Beneath a haggard tent in a sandy encampment, a quarter-mile from a vegan takeout restaurant and several pricey coffee shops (all now shuttered) he struggles to rise from his bedroll. A tattooed, taciturn man in his early 60s, he has stage 4 leukemia and tells me that nine months ago a doctor gave him six months to live. It would sound hackneyed if it were not so obviously true. Dale's eyes are red and veiny. He asks for soft food because his gums are too sore to eat properly. His body shudders with every forced breath.
Dale lies dying on an island in the Los Angeles River. Beneath a haggard tent in a sandy encampment, a quarter-mile from a vegan takeout restaurant and several pricey coffee shops (all now shuttered) he struggles to rise from his bedroll. A tattooed, taciturn man in his early 60s, he has stage 4 leukemia and tells me that nine months ago a doctor gave him six months to live. It would sound hackneyed if it were not so obviously true. Dale’s eyes are red and veiny. He asks for soft food because his gums are too sore to eat properly. His body shudders with every forced breath.
I met Dale while volunteering with SELAH, a local homelessness outreach organization, and have come down to the river to bring him a pack of Pall Mall Red 100s and to tell him that there is no news on trying to get him into Project Roomkey, California’s much-publicized initiative to house high-risk homeless people in vacant hotel rooms during the COVID-19 crisis. The program was viewed as groundbreaking by governments around the world, neatly solving one problem—a pandemic-hit hotel sector—with another. The reality has been very different.
California was suffering from a homelessness epidemic long before the viral one arrived, with more than half of the United States’ unsheltered population living in the Golden State. Officially, Los Angeles County is credited with some 59,000 people living homeless within its borders, of which some 44,000 are unsheltered, but residents and experts alike believe that the actual number is much higher. Though homelessness has steadily increased in recent years, with 2019 seeing a terrifying 12 percent jump countywide, government solutions have, as a rule, never progressed beyond the lamentation phase. In 2016 Angelenos approved a referendum to allot more than $1.2 billion to build housing for people without homes, but these projects have been agonizingly slow to develop, hindered by community opposition and unconscionable cost overruns.
That’s why the announcement in early April of Project Roomkey felt so revolutionary. Unable to shelter in place, without sanitation facilities or often even access to clean water, the homeless population was at a critical risk during the pandemic. Conventional shelters, with their open floor plans, offered similarly perilous opportunities for the spread of the virus. The fear of mass deaths finally spurred the government into action, and with great fanfare Gov. Gavin Newsom promised to house 15,000 homeless Californians for as long as the crisis lasted. Perhaps inspired by California’s example, the United Kingdom proposed a similar initiative, promising to house rough sleepers throughout the country. Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, and other cities around the developed world have offered similar pilot programs.
It’s easy to understand the enthusiasm. Housing homeless people in unused hotels is the kind of common-sense solution for which activists have long been advocating, providing critical shelter for the most desperate while simultaneously aiding a beleaguered hospitality industry. It was also an initiative that would have been fairly unthinkable before the pandemic, as the threat of the virus spurred government to an uncharacteristic urgency (New York had longed housed the homeless in hotels, but as a stopgap for insufficient shelter space). At long last, it seemed the authorities were making a sincere attempt to address a rapidly worsening crisis.
Unfortunately for Dale and the many thousands like him, there’s been a huge gulf between sincerity and effective action. Of the 15,000 beds Los Angeles County promised to make available, as of May 26 less than 2,400 are actually occupied. Project Roomkey has moved forward with agonizing lethargy as the most obviously suitable candidates struggle to find placement, even while government officials hurry to reopen the economy. The culprit is a predictable mélange of institutional incompetence, opposition from entrenched interests, and a general lack of commitment from civic leaders.
In part, Project Roomkey suffers from the complex web of bureaucracy used to implement its policies. Although theoretically a state-run initiative, the project is funded mostly by the federal government and executed by the counties, making for a bewildering array of institutions with some role in the process. There is no system of mass enrollment, and in practice candidates are still forced to work through the same desperately overstretched network of case workers as ever. To be entered into the program individuals are required to undergo an elaborate intake process, always difficult among a far-flung population often lacking cell phones and generally wary of authority, but now made all but impossible as most outreach workers have been called out of the field for fear of spreading the virus.
Hotels have been slow to offer their services, and most of the partner properties are smaller establishments. Despite an average occupancy rate of 20 percent, and after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds even before the pandemic as incentives to build in the city, larger hotels are leery of offering up rooms to the unhoused for insurance and safety reasons—although the program includes on-site security and case management, as well as guaranteeing compensation for any errant property damage. Neighbors have likewise objected to the image of people without homes living in luxury accommodations.
Critics insist that the issue is fundamentally one of political will. They point out that the mayor could, at any point, commandeer the unused hotel rooms and bypass the current process altogether, though this seems enormously unlikely. Even in these strange days, there is only so much elected officials are willing to do antagonize propertied interests in service of the unhoused, who rarely vote and don’t generally pay taxes.
It’s unclear whether the difficulties plaguing Project Roomkey represent a broader failure of the model or reflect the peculiarities of California’s circumstances—though early signs would suggest the former. The budget for a similar program is London has already been exhausted. Paris, like Los Angeles, has struggled to find accommodations for its unhoused population. Overlying all of this is the reality that even the most lavish budgets did not account for the ever-lengthening timeline of the pandemic. As we move from the theoretical clarity of a shelter-in-place order to whatever murkier reality will replace it, the voices calling the matter finished and pushing for a return to the status quo grow louder.
Except that the status quo has been changed irrevocably. The dire economic effects of COVID-19 will swell the number of people living unhoused, particularly in the United States, where as many as 78 percent of workers report living paycheck to paycheck and social services are strained where they are not altogether absent. In a year’s time we might see our homelessness numbers double, shantytowns metastasizing across great metropolises—Trumptowns, like the Hoovervilles of the 1930s. Should this happen, the clamor for dramatic action such as Project Roomkey initially promised may well prove deafening.
In the meantime, Dale continues to wait. Many of the charities and food banks he relies upon have closed, and increased security restrictions around supermarkets have made it more difficult to acquire discarded foodstuffs, once a major source of sustenance. He was taken to the hospital several days ago for shortness of breath, but released the next morning. He accepts my small offerings and listens to my grim updates, but apart from that is cagey and quiet. I sense that he has grown tired of seeing me, of my anxious apologies and false promises. I cannot say I blame him.