foreignpolicy--2020-03-20--Italy’s Coronavirus Death Toll Surpasses China’s

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : Italy ’ s coronavirus death toll is now world ’ s highest as China announces no new locally-transmitted cases , NATO scales down defense exercises , and more world leaders test positive .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
Italy ’ s death toll from its coronavirus epidemic has now reached 3,405 , eclipsing the 3,245 coronavirus-related deaths in China , now the world ’ s second highest .
Although Italy registered fewer deaths than the day before , it announced over 5,000 new cases on Thursday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak ?
Health care systems in Italy are reported to be at a breaking point , with hospitals having to turn away patients for lack of space .
As the crisis has worsened , Italy has enforced ever more stringent controls on its population .
On Thursday , Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced Italy ’ s lockdown would now extend past the original April 3 deadline , with no new end date mentioned .
Italians are only allowed leave their homes to buy food or medicine .
Police have already cited 43,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fontana , the regional governor of Lombardy—where the coronavirus has hit hardest , has said that medical efforts are struggling to keep up .
“ We will soon be unable to give a response to those who fall ill , ” he said , while urging residents to stay at home .
In the town of Bergamo , an Italian daily newspaper reported a convoy of military trucks being used to transport coffins to cremation sites as morgues struggle to cope .
Can the EU do more ?
Italy ’ s Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times he urged EU leaders to open up the 500 billion-euro bailout fund , the European Stability Mechanism ( ESM ) , “ The route to follow is to open ESM credit lines to all member states to help them fight the consequences of the Covid-19 epidemic , ” Conte said .
Will the European Central Bank intervention work ?
Foreign Policy ’ s Keith Johnson spoke to fiscal experts following the bank ’ s 750 billion-euro fix , announced late Wednesday night .
While the move may have averted short-term pain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horizon .
European leaders test positive .
Prince Albert of Monaco and Michel Barnier , the European Union ’ s chief Brexit negotiator , both announced positive coronavirus tests on Thursday , the latest in a string of high-profile figures to contract COVID-19 .
Foreign Policy is keeping track of the world leaders who have been struck by the coronavirus with a running list , updated daily .
China reaches coronavirus milestone .
Officials from China ’ s National Health Commission announced a major milestone on Thursday : no new locally transmitted cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the pandemic began in Hubei province .
Officials did announce 34 new confirmed cases , however they said all were from overseas travelers .
Amazon workers protest conditions .
Amazon workers have mounted protests across the globe , including France , Spain , and the United States as workers both bear the load of increased demand from a housebound public and deal with coronavirus cases within their warehouse centers .
On Wednesday , an Amazon facility in Queens , New York , was cleared out for sanitation after a worker there tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Policy , James Bloodworth says that despite worker unrest , Amazon is one of the few companies that will emerge from the pandemic with even more power than before .
G-7 moved to video conference .
The G-7 Summit , planned for Camp David in June , has been canceled over coronavirus fears .
The White House announced it would instead host a video conference with the group ’ s leaders .
The location of the summit caused controversy in October when it was originally slated to take place at a property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NATO scales down exercises .
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance will be reducing its military exercises in the face of the coronavirus pandemic .
The U.S. army has already said it would scale back the exercise Defender Europe 20 , a division-sized deployment of forces that would have represented the largest movement of U.S. forces to Europe in 25 years .
Stoltenberg said that the crisis was not a reason for member states to cut military spending , citing the need for the military ’ s help in combating the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) has been postponed , according to a statement from Vietnam ’ s Ministry of Foreign Affairs .
Vietnam was due to host the meeting of regional and international leaders , but has now pushed it back until the end of June .
Vietnam introduced mandatory quarantines for all visitors from the United States , Europe , and ASEAN countries on March 17 .
Chile pushes back referendum .
Lawmakers in Chile have agreed to postpone a much-anticipated referendum on a new constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive for a new constitution stemmed from months of protests in 2019 .
The decision to postpone the vote comes as Chile grapples with the coronavirus outbreak ; there are confirmed 342 cases in the country , with no deaths so far .
After supply chain worries over Brexit forced the United Kingdom to consider a world without toilet paper , it ’ s now the Netherlands ’ turn to panic .
Toilet paper has been one of the items most coveted among coronavirus-era shoppers , as worries about store shutdowns drive ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte assured his population on Thursday , toilet paper is still plentiful in the country , “ There ’ s enough in the whole country for the coming 10 years , ” he said .
“ We can all poop for 10 years.
” 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: Italy’s coronavirus death toll is now world’s highest as China announces no new locally-transmitted cases, NATO scales down defense exercises, and more world leaders test positive .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: Italy’s coronavirus death toll is now world’s highest as China announces no new locally-transmitted cases, NATO scales down defense exercises, and more world leaders test positive.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
Italy Overtakes China as Worst-Hit Country
Italy’s death toll from its coronavirus epidemic has now reached 3,405, eclipsing the 3,245 coronavirus-related deaths in China, now the world’s second highest. Although Italy registered fewer deaths than the day before, it announced over 5,000 new cases on Thursday.
How is Italy dealing with its coronavirus outbreak? Health care systems in Italy are reported to be at a breaking point, with hospitals having to turn away patients for lack of space.
As the crisis has worsened, Italy has enforced ever more stringent controls on its population. On Thursday, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced Italy’s lockdown would now extend past the original April 3 deadline, with no new end date mentioned. Italians are only allowed leave their homes to buy food or medicine. Police have already cited 43,000 people for breaking the new rules.
Attilio Fontana, the regional governor of Lombardy—where the coronavirus has hit hardest, has said that medical efforts are struggling to keep up. “We will soon be unable to give a response to those who fall ill,” he said, while urging residents to stay at home.
In the town of Bergamo, an Italian daily newspaper reported a convoy of military trucks being used to transport coffins to cremation sites as morgues struggle to cope.
Can the EU do more? Italy’s Prime Minister thinks so. Speaking to the Financial Times he urged EU leaders to open up the 500 billion-euro bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), “The route to follow is to open ESM credit lines to all member states to help them fight the consequences of the Covid-19 epidemic,” Conte said.
Will the European Central Bank intervention work? Foreign Policy’s Keith Johnson spoke to fiscal experts following the bank’s 750 billion-euro fix, announced late Wednesday night. While the move may have averted short-term pain, more economic damage could be on the horizon.
What We’re Following Today
European leaders test positive. Prince Albert of Monaco and Michel Barnier, the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, both announced positive coronavirus tests on Thursday, the latest in a string of high-profile figures to contract COVID-19. Foreign Policy is keeping track of the world leaders who have been struck by the coronavirus with a running list, updated daily.
China reaches coronavirus milestone. Officials from China’s National Health Commission announced a major milestone on Thursday: no new locally transmitted cases of the coronavirus in the country—a first since the pandemic began in Hubei province. Officials did announce 34 new confirmed cases, however they said all were from overseas travelers.
Amazon workers protest conditions. Amazon workers have mounted protests across the globe, including France, Spain, and the United States as workers both bear the load of increased demand from a housebound public and deal with coronavirus cases within their warehouse centers.
On Wednesday, an Amazon facility in Queens, New York, was cleared out for sanitation after a worker there tested positive for the coronavirus. Writing in Foreign Policy, James Bloodworth says that despite worker unrest, Amazon is one of the few companies that will emerge from the pandemic with even more power than before.
Keep an Eye On
G-7 moved to video conference. The G-7 Summit, planned for Camp David in June, has been canceled over coronavirus fears. The White House announced it would instead host a video conference with the group’s leaders. The location of the summit caused controversy in October when it was originally slated to take place at a property owned by U.S. President Donald Trump.
NATO scales down exercises. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance will be reducing its military exercises in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. The U.S. army has already said it would scale back the exercise Defender Europe 20, a division-sized deployment of forces that would have represented the largest movement of U.S. forces to Europe in 25 years. Stoltenberg said that the crisis was not a reason for member states to cut military spending, citing the need for the military’s help in combating the virus.
ASEAN summit postponed. The summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been postponed, according to a statement from Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Vietnam was due to host the meeting of regional and international leaders, but has now pushed it back until the end of June. Vietnam introduced mandatory quarantines for all visitors from the United States, Europe, and ASEAN countries on March 17.
Chile pushes back referendum. Lawmakers in Chile have agreed to postpone a much-anticipated referendum on a new constitution, originally scheduled for April 26. The drive for a new constitution stemmed from months of protests in 2019. The decision to postpone the vote comes as Chile grapples with the coronavirus outbreak; there are confirmed 342 cases in the country, with no deaths so far.
Odds and Ends
After supply chain worries over Brexit forced the United Kingdom to consider a world without toilet paper, it’s now the Netherlands’ turn to panic. Toilet paper has been one of the items most coveted among coronavirus-era shoppers, as worries about store shutdowns drive ever more panicked behavior. Never fear, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte assured his population on Thursday, toilet paper is still plentiful in the country, “There’s enough in the whole country for the coming 10 years,” he said. “We can all poop for 10 years.”
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-20--Sudan Has a Window of Opportunity. The West Shouldn’t Squander It.

Sudan Has a Window of Opportunity .
The West Shouldn ’ t Squander It .
For the first time in more than 14 years , the Sudanese government last month welcomed a Human Rights Watch delegation , which I headed , for official meetings in Khartoum .
This remarkable turn-around signals a new openness after protesters forced longtime dictator and indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir to step down last April .
Ongoing pressure from protesters has compelled the military and its paramilitary allies to permit a significant degree of civilian rule .
There is an exhilarating air of hope in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built .
But powerful forces are resisting , as illustrated by the attempted assassination of the civilian prime minister , Abdalla Hamdok , on March 9 .
( The identity of the attackers is still unknown . )
Rapid international support is needed to avoid squandering this rare opportunity for democracy in the country .
Sudan has made a great deal of progress in the past year .
Thanks to the Sudanese population ’ s resistance to any return to military rule , military leaders agreed in July to share power with civilians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereign council—effectively a collective presidency—for the first 21 months , to be followed by civilians for the next 18 months , after which elections are supposed to be held .
The leaders appointed a civilian prime minister , selected civilian ministers , and agreed on a time frame for appointing a legislative council , regional governors , and various commissions to carry out the prodigious task of reforming the government after 30 years of mismanagement , corruption , repression , and violent abuse .
The senior officials I met with went out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic reform .
The chair of the sovereign council , Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan , and Prime Minister Hamdok reiterated their desire to enhance respect for human rights and the rule of law , including cooperating with the International Criminal Court ( ICC ) , which has issued arrest warrants for Bashir and four others for directing atrocities in Sudan ’ s western province of Darfur .
This was a remarkable shift after years in which Bashir refused to recognize the court .
Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari , who was educated at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out new laws , suspended discriminatory public-order laws , and has banned flogging , a form of corporal punishment that flouts international human rights law .
Attorney General Taj al-Sir al-Hebr has set up committees to investigate the most serious past atrocities , important steps that should complement the work of the ICC .
As called for in last summer ’ s agreement , the government also began an investigation into the killing of at least 120 unarmed protesters on June 3 , weeks after Bashir was ousted .
The investigating committee has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violent crackdown included the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces ( RSF ) .
Once known as the Janjaweed , the RSF was responsible for mass atrocities in Darfur as well as Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states .
It is led by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo , known as “ Hemeti , ” who is Burhan ’ s deputy on the ruling sovereign council .
The RSF is the most powerful armed group in the country .
Instead of facing criminal charges for his past crimes anytime soon , the wily Hemeti has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most powerful leader .
But instead of facing criminal charges for his past crimes anytime soon , the wily Hemeti has made himself arguably the country ’ s most powerful leader .
He is being touted by some Sudanese political leaders , including certain opposition politicians who have long called for justice for abuses in Darfur , as a reliable strongman and a bulwark against radical Islamists .
Such countervailing pressures—to fight Islamists while keeping stability in the security sector at the expense of justice and accountability—help explain some of the fragilities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilian leadership and oversight of security forces is so urgent .
Already there are worrisome delays .
The government has not yet appointed the legislative council and civilian governors .
One excuse offered is the need to wait for Darfur peace talks to be concluded so rebel groups can then be represented in the legislature , though the talks are proceeding slowly .
A better approach would be to establish the much-needed legislature now and reserve certain seats for rebel groups to be filled once the peace talks are concluded .
The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for human rights , transitional justice , and elections , among others , or made meaningful institutional reforms .
The transition has not reached Darfur , where civilians are still at risk of attacks .
Fighting between Arab and Massalit communities in West Darfur in December led to a large attack by armed Arab militia , including members of the RSF , on the Krinding displaced persons ’ camp .
Dozens of people were reportedly killed , homes were burned , and tens of thousands were forced to flee .
A United Nations-African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have helped to de-escalate the situation , had left the area in May .
Both the government and the U.N. seem intent on winding down UNAMID by October despite the lack of any alternative force to curtail such violence .
Perhaps the most pressing of Sudan ’ s challenges is its economy , which lies in tatters after years of the former government ’ s corruption , mismanagement , and overspending on military and security sectors .
Inflation has soared , and the price of crude oil , the main revenue earner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel and bread lines in Khartoum .
Because bread prices were a major trigger for the December 2018 protests that toppled Bashir ’ s government , the transitional administration needs a quick fix .
But donors do not appear to be stepping up .
Some are waiting for Sudan ’ s leaders to articulate their economic strategy , especially for lifting subsidies on basic products such as bread and fuel , despite the enormous unpopularity of such moves .
Others are reluctant , fearing that military and paramilitary leaders will find some way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not stepping up , and the world ’ s delay in responding to Sudan ’ s economic crisis raises the possibility of a stillborn transition .
This delay in responding to Sudan ’ s economic crisis raises the possibility of a stillborn transition .
The lack of funds , among other things , is impeding the work of the justice minister and the attorney general and the all-important investigation into the June 3 massacre .
There needs to be a way to support civilian officials—reinforcing their popular legitimacy—without bolstering military and paramilitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some civil society groups have pressed the U.S. government to lift its designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism ( SST ) , which keeps trade sanctions in place , restricts international loans , and discourages foreign investment .
They argue that keeping SST and related sanctions could undermine a democratic transition .
Human Rights Watch doesn ’ t take a position on whether states should be designated sponsors of terrorism .
But when the Obama administration announced it would take steps to lift comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on Sudan during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain human rights benchmarks be met before such relief was made permanent .
We also urged Washington to impose individual , targeted sanctions against those implicated in grave violations .
The U.S. government should be guided by clear and transparent human rights benchmarks with the goal of helping civilian authorities build a rights-respecting government .
Much has changed in Sudan since then , but in setting policy toward Sudan , the U.S. government should still be guided by clear and transparent human rights benchmarks with the goal of helping civilian authorities build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law over security forces , and fulfill the social and economic rights of the Sudanese people that the Bashir government eviscerated .
That means helping the new government achieve an ambitious reform agenda , ensuring a transition to civilian rule , and securing accountability for those who directed the most serious abuses , including against protesters .
Promoting such accountability is best pursued through individual , targeted sanctions , rather than broad economic ones , by sidelining obstructive actors rather than treating them as respected interlocutors and by urging Gulf states to discontinue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overriding aim should be to help the Sudanese people in their quest for a more transparent and accountable government based on the rule of law .
The civilian leaders I met in Khartoum were impressive and seemingly committed to a successful democratic transition .
But as they face a dire economy and recalcitrant security forces , their window of opportunity is narrow .
The West should attach the highest priority to helping them navigate the new but treacherous path to a rights-respecting government in Sudan .

For the first time in more than 14 years , the Sudanese government last month welcomed a Human Rights Watch delegation, which I headed, for official meetings in Khartoum. This remarkable turn-around signals a new openness after protesters forced longtime dictator and indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir to step down last April. Ongoing pressure from protesters has compelled the military and its paramilitary allies to permit a significant degree of civilian rule.
For the first time in more than 14 years, the Sudanese government last month welcomed a Human Rights Watch delegation, which I headed, for official meetings in Khartoum. This remarkable turn-around signals a new openness after protesters forced longtime dictator and indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir to step down last April. Ongoing pressure from protesters has compelled the military and its paramilitary allies to permit a significant degree of civilian rule.
There is an exhilarating air of hope in Khartoum that a rights-respecting democracy can be built. But powerful forces are resisting, as illustrated by the attempted assassination of the civilian prime minister, Abdalla Hamdok, on March 9. (The identity of the attackers is still unknown.) Rapid international support is needed to avoid squandering this rare opportunity for democracy in the country.
Sudan has made a great deal of progress in the past year. Thanks to the Sudanese population’s resistance to any return to military rule, military leaders agreed in July to share power with civilians. The military is chairing a ruling sovereign council—effectively a collective presidency—for the first 21 months, to be followed by civilians for the next 18 months, after which elections are supposed to be held.
The leaders appointed a civilian prime minister, selected civilian ministers, and agreed on a time frame for appointing a legislative council, regional governors, and various commissions to carry out the prodigious task of reforming the government after 30 years of mismanagement, corruption, repression, and violent abuse.
The senior officials I met with went out of their way to profess their commitment to democratic reform. The chair of the sovereign council, Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and Prime Minister Hamdok reiterated their desire to enhance respect for human rights and the rule of law, including cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued arrest warrants for Bashir and four others for directing atrocities in Sudan’s western province of Darfur. This was a remarkable shift after years in which Bashir refused to recognize the court.
Justice Minister Nasredeen Abdulbari, who was educated at Georgetown University in Washington, is churning out new laws, suspended discriminatory public-order laws, and has banned flogging, a form of corporal punishment that flouts international human rights law. Attorney General Taj al-Sir al-Hebr has set up committees to investigate the most serious past atrocities, important steps that should complement the work of the ICC.
As called for in last summer’s agreement, the government also began an investigation into the killing of at least 120 unarmed protesters on June 3, weeks after Bashir was ousted. The investigating committee has a tough task because those behind that violent crackdown included the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Once known as the Janjaweed, the RSF was responsible for mass atrocities in Darfur as well as Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. It is led by Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as “Hemeti,” who is Burhan’s deputy on the ruling sovereign council. The RSF is the most powerful armed group in the country.
Instead of facing criminal charges for his past crimes anytime soon, the wily Hemeti has made himself arguably the country’s most powerful leader.
But instead of facing criminal charges for his past crimes anytime soon, the wily Hemeti has made himself arguably the country’s most powerful leader. He is being touted by some Sudanese political leaders, including certain opposition politicians who have long called for justice for abuses in Darfur, as a reliable strongman and a bulwark against radical Islamists. Such countervailing pressures—to fight Islamists while keeping stability in the security sector at the expense of justice and accountability—help explain some of the fragilities in Sudan’s transition and why supporting civilian leadership and oversight of security forces is so urgent.
Already there are worrisome delays. The government has not yet appointed the legislative council and civilian governors. One excuse offered is the need to wait for Darfur peace talks to be concluded so rebel groups can then be represented in the legislature, though the talks are proceeding slowly. A better approach would be to establish the much-needed legislature now and reserve certain seats for rebel groups to be filled once the peace talks are concluded. The government has also not yet formed promised commissions for human rights, transitional justice, and elections, among others, or made meaningful institutional reforms.
The transition has not reached Darfur, where civilians are still at risk of attacks. Fighting between Arab and Massalit communities in West Darfur in December led to a large attack by armed Arab militia, including members of the RSF, on the Krinding displaced persons’ camp. Dozens of people were reportedly killed, homes were burned, and tens of thousands were forced to flee. A United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission, UNAMID, which might have helped to de-escalate the situation, had left the area in May. Both the government and the U.N. seem intent on winding down UNAMID by October despite the lack of any alternative force to curtail such violence.
Perhaps the most pressing of Sudan’s challenges is its economy, which lies in tatters after years of the former government’s corruption, mismanagement, and overspending on military and security sectors. Inflation has soared, and the price of crude oil, the main revenue earner, is down. I saw long fuel and bread lines in Khartoum. Because bread prices were a major trigger for the December 2018 protests that toppled Bashir’s government, the transitional administration needs a quick fix.
But donors do not appear to be stepping up. Some are waiting for Sudan’s leaders to articulate their economic strategy, especially for lifting subsidies on basic products such as bread and fuel, despite the enormous unpopularity of such moves. Others are reluctant, fearing that military and paramilitary leaders will find some way to scuttle the democratic transition.
Donors are not stepping up, and the world’s delay in responding to Sudan’s economic crisis raises the possibility of a stillborn transition.
This delay in responding to Sudan’s economic crisis raises the possibility of a stillborn transition. The lack of funds, among other things, is impeding the work of the justice minister and the attorney general and the all-important investigation into the June 3 massacre. There needs to be a way to support civilian officials—reinforcing their popular legitimacy—without bolstering military and paramilitary forces.
Sudan’s government and some civil society groups have pressed the U.S. government to lift its designation of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism (SST), which keeps trade sanctions in place, restricts international loans, and discourages foreign investment. They argue that keeping SST and related sanctions could undermine a democratic transition.
Human Rights Watch doesn’t take a position on whether states should be designated sponsors of terrorism. But when the Obama administration announced it would take steps to lift comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on Sudan during the Bashir regime, we insisted that certain human rights benchmarks be met before such relief was made permanent. We also urged Washington to impose individual, targeted sanctions against those implicated in grave violations.
The U.S. government should be guided by clear and transparent human rights benchmarks with the goal of helping civilian authorities build a rights-respecting government.
Much has changed in Sudan since then, but in setting policy toward Sudan, the U.S. government should still be guided by clear and transparent human rights benchmarks with the goal of helping civilian authorities build a rights-respecting government, assert the rule of law over security forces, and fulfill the social and economic rights of the Sudanese people that the Bashir government eviscerated.
That means helping the new government achieve an ambitious reform agenda, ensuring a transition to civilian rule, and securing accountability for those who directed the most serious abuses, including against protesters. Promoting such accountability is best pursued through individual, targeted sanctions, rather than broad economic ones, by sidelining obstructive actors rather than treating them as respected interlocutors and by urging Gulf states to discontinue their support for these individuals. The overriding aim should be to help the Sudanese people in their quest for a more transparent and accountable government based on the rule of law.
The civilian leaders I met in Khartoum were impressive and seemingly committed to a successful democratic transition. But as they face a dire economy and recalcitrant security forces, their window of opportunity is narrow. The West should attach the highest priority to helping them navigate the new but treacherous path to a rights-respecting government in Sudan.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-19--China Casts Itself as Global Savior While U.S. and EU Focus on Virus at Home

China Casts Itself as Global Savior While U.S. and EU Focus on Virus at Home Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic was emotional as he gave a press conference on the global coronavirus pandemic this week , bluntly naming which countries Serbia could count on for support—and which ones it couldn ’ t .
At the top of the list wasn ’ t any European country , despite Serbia ’ s long-standing goal to join the European Union , but China , the country where the new coronavirus originated .
“ By now you all understand that great international solidarity does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Vucic said .
“ It was a fairy tale on paper .
Today I sent a special letter , ” he paused briefly and swallowed audibly , “ to the only ones who can help , and that is China.
” He then said he had asked Chinese President Xi Jinping “ not only as a dear friend , but as a brother ” to provide Serbia sorely needed medical supplies denied by the EU .
Vucic ’ s words amounted to a stinging rebuke of how the European Union has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its borders .
But it also served as a warning sign to Western leaders that China is on the soft power offensive , scrambling to refurbish its image after botching the initial coronavirus response .
The Chinese government ’ s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak that began in Wuhan province—initially trying to cover it up , including arresting doctors who raised early alarm bells—helped lead to the global spread of the pandemic .
But now , as cases within its own borders begin to ebb , Beijing is shipping sorely needed medical supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran , two of the countries hit hardest by the virus outside of China .
[ Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak : Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it ’ s affecting countries around the world . ]
That has led to a combination of praise , mistrust , and criticism from top Western officials and experts who see China ’ s pandemic response as reflective of its growing global clout , especially in the face of what critics characterize as stumbling responses by the EU and United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Italy and Iran and impacted areas .
… I think that ’ s a humanitarian effort , but they don ’ t do anything without the propaganda component , ” Rep. Michael McCaul , the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee , told Foreign Policy in an interview .
“ Remember , they covered this up for about two months where they could ’ ve been containing it better , and now the world is at risk , ” he said .
“ I do think they need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is trying to “ establish itself as a global hero that saved many people both in and outside China , ” Lee Seong-hyon , the director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the Sejong Institute in Seoul , told Foreign Policy .
“ China ’ s coming out strong with its PR , sensing , correctly , that this global epidemic is also a great opportunity to burnish China ’ s soft power credentials with Europe and [ others ] .
On the other hand , America is not investing enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends , and not investing enough in this narrative war.
” “ China is very good at grasping any opportunity to move forward and showing they ’ re doing the right thing when other countries are distracted , ” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan , a professor of government and international studies at Hong Kong Baptist University .
U.S. officials have sought to keep the spotlight on China ’ s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak as the root cause of the global pandemic—and rebuking Beijing for launching a campaign of misinformation and booting out U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party didn ’ t get it right and put countless lives at risk as a result of that , ” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News in an interview .
After scrambling to contain the outbreak within its own borders for months , China is now beginning to focus outside its own borders .
“ China is able to put its head back up and look around the world and find these opportunities to give support , ” said John Delury , a professor of Chinese studies at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it looks like China ’ s out there helping the world , whereas the United States is in ‘ America First ’ mode , ” he added .
Besides Serbia , Italy , the nation currently hardest-hit besides China , has seen Chinese gear and experts arrive .
Jack Ma , the billionaire founder of the Chinese e-commerce site Alibaba , has sent test kits and masks to both the United States and African countries .
The narrative war started on Twitter when Zhao Lijian , a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing the virus to Wuhan , a myth that is in stark contrast to the generally accepted story of the virus originating in one of the city ’ s many wet markets , which sell meat and live animals .
This all came in response to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s use of the controversial phrase “ Wuhan virus ” to describe the novel coronavirus .
The two sides continue to level accusations at each other .
“ This is a time where we need a lot more international cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sharing their expertise .
That ’ s actually the travesty of this narrative war , because it can impede the kind of real cooperation that desperately needs to occur , ” Delury said The U.S. response has exacerbated relations with Europe , already under strain for years under Trump , said Rachel Rizzo , an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security , a Washington-based think tank .
Trump blindsided his counterparts across the Atlantic when he announced travel restrictions to Europe on March 12 .
Several current and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European ambassadors in Washington were given no advance warning of the announcement .
It came as the Trump administration quietly tried to acquire a German company developing a vaccine to the virus for exclusive U.S. access , angering European officials .
“ Trust in the U.S. has waned even further in the last couple of weeks , especially after the announcement of the travel restrictions that took European leaders by surprise , ” Rizzo said .
Still , no matter how many medical supplies Beijing sends abroad or how much it touts international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off the blame that it botched the initial handling of the virus , contributing to its global spread .
Any goodwill the Chinese have bought “ is temporary , ” said Rizzo .
“ I think no matter how much China tries to help Europe , or anyone else for that matter , there will be a sense of resentment and anger , ” Rizzo said .
“ I think this will reverberate and could have broad implications for the relationship between China and Europe going forward.
” Some European nations might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already pivoted toward China for a while now , and Belgrade ’ s streets are filled with facial recognition cameras created by the Chinese tech giant Huawei .
Cabestan , the Hong Kong Baptist University professor , also said Italy has stood apart from other EU members by embracing China ’ s Belt and Road Initiative , and that Spain is standing in line to receive Chinese supplies and expertise when the epidemic there reaches a critical mass .
“ Sending a team of experts to Italy might get China some new friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so some Southern Europe countries might be more friendly to China .
But they are not going to convince Brussels or London , ” he said from his office in Hong Kong .
Cabestan is also concerned about Beijing ’ s ulterior motives for sending experts to Europe .
“ There ’ s another thing that shouldn ’ t be overlooked , the fact that China is in a battle for putting together a vaccine or a drug to treat COVID , and that ’ s one of the reasons for sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the virus has evolved , to gather data , ” he said .

Morten Soendergaard Larsen and Robbie Gramer

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic was emotional as he gave a press conference on the global coronavirus pandemic this week, bluntly naming which countries Serbia could count on for support—and which ones it couldn’t. At the top of the list wasn’t any European country, despite Serbia’s long-standing goal to join the European Union, but China, the country where the new coronavirus originated.
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic was emotional as he gave a press conference on the global coronavirus pandemic this week, bluntly naming which countries Serbia could count on for support—and which ones it couldn’t. At the top of the list wasn’t any European country, despite Serbia’s long-standing goal to join the European Union, but China, the country where the new coronavirus originated.
“By now you all understand that great international solidarity does not exist. European solidarity does not exist,” Vucic said. “It was a fairy tale on paper. Today I sent a special letter,” he paused briefly and swallowed audibly, “to the only ones who can help, and that is China.” He then said he had asked Chinese President Xi Jinping “not only as a dear friend, but as a brother” to provide Serbia sorely needed medical supplies denied by the EU.
Vucic’s words amounted to a stinging rebuke of how the European Union has handled its response to the coronavirus outside its borders. But it also served as a warning sign to Western leaders that China is on the soft power offensive, scrambling to refurbish its image after botching the initial coronavirus response.
The Chinese government’s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak that began in the city of Wuhan—initially trying to cover it up, including detaining doctors who raised early alarm bells—helped lead to the global spread of the pandemic. But now, as cases within its own borders begin to ebb, Beijing is shipping sorely needed medical supplies and doctors worldwide, including to Italy and Iran, two of the countries hit hardest by the virus outside of China.
[Mapping the Coronavirus Outbreak: Get daily updates on the pandemic and learn how it’s affecting countries around the world.]
That has led to a combination of praise, mistrust, and criticism from top Western officials and experts who see China’s pandemic response as reflective of its growing global clout, especially in the face of what critics characterize as stumbling responses by the EU and United States.
“I commend them for sending supplies to Italy and Iran and impacted areas. … I think that’s a humanitarian effort, but they don’t do anything without the propaganda component,” Rep. Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Foreign Policy in an interview.
“Remember, they covered this up for about two months where they could’ve been containing it better, and now the world is at risk,” he said. “I do think they need to be held accountable and responsible.”
The Chinese government is trying to “establish itself as a global hero that saved many people both in and outside China,” Lee Seong-hyon, the director of the Center for Chinese Studies at the Sejong Institute in Seoul, told Foreign Policy. “China’s coming out strong with its PR, sensing, correctly, that this global epidemic is also a great opportunity to burnish China’s soft power credentials with Europe and [others]. On the other hand, America is not investing enough resources to help its traditional allies and friends, and not investing enough in this narrative war.”
“China is very good at grasping any opportunity to move forward and showing they’re doing the right thing when other countries are distracted,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a professor of government and international studies at Hong Kong Baptist University.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
U.S. officials have sought to keep the spotlight on China’s mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak as the root cause of the global pandemic—and rebuking Beijing for launching a campaign of misinformation and booting out U.S. journalists from the country. “The Chinese Communist Party didn’t get it right and put countless lives at risk as a result of that,” U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News in an interview.
After scrambling to contain the outbreak within its own borders for months, China is now beginning to focus outside its own borders. “China is able to put its head back up and look around the world and find these opportunities to give support,” said John Delury, a professor of Chinese studies at Yonsei University in Seoul.
“So, it looks like China’s out there helping the world, whereas the United States is in ‘America First’ mode,” he added.
Besides Serbia, Italy, the nation currently hardest-hit besides China, has seen Chinese gear and experts arrive. Jack Ma, the billionaire founder of the Chinese e-commerce site Alibaba, has sent test kits and masks to both the United States and African countries.
The narrative war started on Twitter when Zhao Lijian, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, tried to blame the U.S. military for bringing the virus to Wuhan, a myth that is in stark contrast to the generally accepted story of the virus originating in one of the city’s many wet markets, which sell meat and live animals. This all came in response to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s use of the controversial phrase “Wuhan virus” to describe the novel coronavirus.
The two sides continue to level accusations at each other. “This is a time where we need a lot more international cooperation, and it is good that China is sharing their expertise. That’s actually the travesty of this narrative war, because it can impede the kind of real cooperation that desperately needs to occur,” Delury said
The U.S. response has exacerbated relations with Europe, already under strain for years under Trump, said Rachel Rizzo, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank.
Trump blindsided his counterparts across the Atlantic when he announced travel restrictions to Europe on March 12. Several current and former officials familiar with the matter say European ambassadors in Washington were given no advance warning of the announcement. It came as the Trump administration quietly tried to acquire a German company developing a vaccine to the virus for exclusive U.S. access, angering European officials.
“Trust in the U.S. has waned even further in the last couple of weeks, especially after the announcement of the travel restrictions that took European leaders by surprise,” Rizzo said.
Still, no matter how many medical supplies Beijing sends abroad or how much it touts international cooperation, it can’t shake off the blame that it botched the initial handling of the virus, contributing to its global spread. Any goodwill the Chinese have bought “is temporary,” said Rizzo.
“I think no matter how much China tries to help Europe, or anyone else for that matter, there will be a sense of resentment and anger,” Rizzo said. “I think this will reverberate and could have broad implications for the relationship between China and Europe going forward.”
Some European nations might be more welcoming, though. Serbia has already pivoted toward China for a while now, and Belgrade’s streets are filled with facial recognition cameras created by the Chinese tech giant Huawei.
Cabestan, the Hong Kong Baptist University professor, also said Italy has stood apart from other EU members by embracing China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and that Spain is standing in line to receive Chinese supplies and expertise when the epidemic there reaches a critical mass.
“Sending a team of experts to Italy might get China some new friends. Spain is on the waiting list, so some Southern Europe countries might be more friendly to China. But they are not going to convince Brussels or London,” he said from his office in Hong Kong.
Cabestan is also concerned about Beijing’s ulterior motives for sending experts to Europe. “There’s another thing that shouldn’t be overlooked, the fact that China is in a battle for putting together a vaccine or a drug to treat COVID, and that’s one of the reasons for sending teams outside of China, to see how the virus has evolved, to gather data,” he said.


foreignpolicy--2020-03-20--How the World Will Look After the Coronavirus Pandemic

The pandemic will strengthen the state and reinforce nationalism .
Governments of all types will adopt emergency measures to manage the crisis , and many will be loath to relinquish these new powers when the crisis is over .
COVID-19 will also accelerate the shift in power and influence from West to East .
South Korea and Singapore have responded best , and China has reacted well after its early mistakes .
The response in Europe and America has been slow and haphazard by comparison , further tarnishing the aura of the Western “ brand.
” What won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world politics .
Previous plagues did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation .
Previous plagues—including the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919—did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation .
Neither will COVID-19 .
We will see a further retreat from hyperglobalization , as citizens look to national governments to protect them and as states and firms seek to reduce future vulnerabilities .
In short , COVID-19 will create a world that is less open , less prosperous , and less free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this way , but the combination of a deadly virus , inadequate planning , and incompetent leadership has placed humanity on a new and worrisome path .
The End of Globalization as We Know It The coronavirus pandemic could be the straw that breaks the camel ’ s back of economic globalization .
China ’ s growing economic and military power had already provoked a bipartisan determination in the United States to decouple China from U.S.-sourced high technology and intellectual property and try to force allies to follow suit .
Increasing public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targets had already called into question many companies ’ reliance on long-distance supply chains .
Now , COVID-19 is forcing governments , companies , and societies to strengthen their capacity to cope with extended periods of economic self-isolation .
It seems highly unlikely in this context that the world will return to the idea of mutually beneficial globalization that defined the early 21st century .
And without the incentive to protect the shared gains from global economic integration , the architecture of global economic governance established in the 20th century will quickly atrophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for political leaders to sustain international cooperation and not retreat into overt geopolitical competition .
Proving to their citizens that they can manage the COVID-19 crisis will buy leaders some political capital .
But those who fail will find it hard to resist the temptation to blame others for their failure .
The COVID-19 pandemic will not fundamentally alter global economic directions .
It will only accelerate a change that had already begun : a move away from U.S.-centric globalization to a more China-centric globalization .
Why will this trend continue ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and international trade .
Free trade agreements are toxic , with or without U.S. President Donald Trump .
By contrast , China has not lost faith .
Why not ?
There are deeper historical reasons .
Chinese leaders now know well that China ’ s century of humiliation from 1842 to 1949 was a result of its own complacency and a futile effort by its leaders to cut it off from the world .
By contrast , the past few decades of economic resurgence were a result of global engagement .
The Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural confidence .
They believe they can compete anywhere .
Consequently , as I document in my new book , Has China Won ?
, the United States has two choices .
If its primary goal is to maintain global primacy , it will have to engage in a zero-sum geopolitical contest , politically and economically , with China .
However , if the goal of the United States is to improve the well-being of the American people—whose social condition has deteriorated—it should cooperate with China .
Wiser counsel would suggest that cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , given the toxic U.S. political environment toward China , wiser counsel may not prevail .
Democracies Will Come out of Their Shell In the short term , the crisis will give fuel to all the various camps in the Western grand strategy debate .
The nationalists and anti-globalists , the China hawks , and even the liberal internationalists will all see new evidence for the urgency of their views .
Given the economic damage and social collapse that is unfolding , it is hard to see anything other than a reinforcement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , strategic decoupling , and the like .
Just like in the 1930s and ’ 40s , there might also be a slower-evolving countercurrent.But just like in the 1930s and ’ 40s , there might also be a slower-evolving countercurrent , a sort of hardheaded internationalism similar to the one that Franklin D. Roosevelt and a few other statesmen began to articulate before and during the war .
The 1930s collapse of the world economy showed how connected modern societies were and how vulnerable they were to what FDR called contagion .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great powers than by the deep forces—and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character—of modernity .
What FDR and other internationalists conjured was a postwar order that would rebuild an open system with new forms of protecting security and capacities to manage interdependence .
The United States couldn ’ t simply hide within its borders , but to operate in an open postwar order required the building of a global infrastructure of multilateral cooperation .
So the United States and other Western democracies might travel through this same sequence of reactions driven by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be more nationalist at first , but over the longer term , the democracies will come out of their shells to find a new type of pragmatic and protective internationalism .
COVID-19 is undermining the basic tenets of global manufacturing .
Companies will now rethink and shrink the multistep , multicountry supply chains that dominate production today .
Global supply chains were already coming under fire , both economically and politically.Global supply chains were already coming under fire—economically , due to rising Chinese labor costs , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , automation , and 3D printing , as well as politically , due to real and perceived job losses , especially in mature economies .
COVID-19 has now broken many of these links : Factory closings in afflicted areas have left other manufacturers—as well as hospitals , pharmacies , supermarkets , and retail stores—bereft of inventories and products .
On the other side of the pandemic , more companies will demand to know more about where their supplies come from and will trade off efficiency for redundancy .
Governments will intervene as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have domestic backup plans and reserves .
Profitability will fall , but supply stability should rise .
This Pandemic Can Serve a Useful Purpose It is early days yet , but three things seem apparent .
First , the coronavirus pandemic will change our politics , both within states and between them .
It is to the power of government that societies—even libertarians—have turned .
Government ’ s relative success in overcoming the pandemic and its economic effects will exacerbate or diminish security issues and the recent polarization within societies .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far shows that authoritarians or populists are no better at handling the pandemic .
Indeed , the countries that responded early and successfully , such as Korea and Taiwan , have been democracies—not those run by populist or authoritarian leaders .
This is not yet the end of an interconnected world .
The pandemic itself is proof of our interdependence .
Secondly , this is not yet the end of an interconnected world .
The pandemic itself is proof of our interdependence .
But in all polities , there is already a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and control of one ’ s own fate .
We are headed for a poorer , meaner , and smaller world .
Finally , there are signs of hope and good sense .
India took the initiative to convene a video conference of all South Asian leaders to craft a common regional response to the threat .
If the pandemic shocks us into recognizing our real interest in cooperating multilaterally on the big global issues facing us , it will have served a useful purpose .
American Power Will Need a New Strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced a new national security strategy that focuses on great-power competition .
COVID-19 shows this strategy to be inadequate .
Even if the United States prevails as a great power , it can not protect its security by acting alone .
As Richard Danzig summarized the problem in 2018 : “ Twenty-first century technologies are global not just in their distribution , but also in their consequences .
Pathogens , AI systems , computer viruses , and radiation that others may accidentally release could become as much our problem as theirs .
Agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingency plans , norms , and treaties must be pursued as means of moderating our numerous mutual risks.
” On transnational threats like COVID-19 and climate change , it is not enough to think of American power over other nations .
The key to success is also learning the importance of power with others .
Every country puts its national interest first ; the important question is how broadly or narrowly this interest is defined .
COVID-19 shows we are failing to adjust our strategy to this new world .
The History of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As it has always been , history will be written by the “ victors ” of the COVID-19 crisis .
Every nation , and increasingly every individual , is experiencing the societal strain of this disease in new and powerful ways .
Inevitably , those nations that persevere—both by virtue of their unique political and economic systems , as well as from a public health perspective—will claim success over those who experience a different , more devastating outcome .
To some , this will appear as a great and definitive triumph for democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To others , it will showcase the clear “ benefits ” of decisive , authoritarian rule.To some , this will appear as a great and definitive triumph for democracy .
To others , it will showcase the clear “ benefits ” of authoritarian rule .
Either way , this crisis will reshuffle the international power structure in ways we can only begin to imagine .
COVID-19 will continue to depress economic activity and increase tension between countries .
Over the long term , the pandemic will likely significantly reduce the productive capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses close and individuals detach from the labor force .
This risk of dislocation is especially great for developing nations and others with a large share of economically vulnerable workers .
The international system will , in turn , come under great pressure , resulting in instability and widespread conflict within and across countries .
The fundamental shock to the world ’ s financial and economic system is the recognition that global supply chains and distribution networks are deeply vulnerable to disruption .
The coronavirus pandemic will therefore not only have long-lasting economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental change .
Globalization allowed companies to farm out manufacturing all over the world and deliver their products to markets on a just-in-time basis , bypassing the costs of warehousing .
Inventories that sat on shelves for more than a few days were considered market failures .
Supply had to be sourced and shipped on a carefully orchestrated , global level .
COVID-19 has proven that pathogens can not only infect people but poison the entire just-in-time system .
Given the scale of financial market losses the world has experienced since February , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic decidedly gun-shy about the just-in-time model and about globally dispersed production .
The result could be a dramatic new stage in global capitalism , in which supply chains are brought closer to home and filled with redundancies to protect against future disruption .
That may cut into companies ’ near-term profits but render the entire system more resilient .
Permanent is not a word I am fond of , as little or nothing is , but I would think the coronavirus crisis will at least for a few years lead most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what takes place within their borders rather than on what happens beyond them .
I anticipate greater moves toward selective self-sufficiency ( and , as a result , decoupling ) given supply chain vulnerability ; even greater opposition to large-scale immigration ; and a reduced willingness or commitment to tackle regional or global problems ( including climate change ) given the perceived need to dedicate resources to rebuild at home and deal with economic consequences of the crisis.Many countries will have difficulty recovering , with state weakness and failed states becoming even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have difficulty recovering from the crisis , with state weakness and failed states becoming an even more prevalent feature of the world .
The crisis will likely contribute to the ongoing deterioration of Sino-American relations and the weakening of European integration .
On the positive side , we should see some modest strengthening of global public health governance .
But overall , a crisis rooted in globalization will weaken rather than add to the world ’ s willingness and ability to deal with it .
The United States Has Failed the Leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen as an international leader.The United States will no longer be seen as an international leader because of its government ’ s narrow self-interest and bungling incompetence .
The global effects of this pandemic could have been greatly attenuated by having international organizations provide more and earlier information , which would have given governments time to prepare and direct resources to where they ’ re most needed .
This is something the United States could have organized , showing that while it is self-interested , it is not solely self-interested .
Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world is worse off for it .
In Every Country , We See the Power of the Human Spirit The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global crisis of this century .
Its depth and scale are enormous .
The public health crisis threatens each of the 7.8 billion people on Earth .
The financial and economic crisis could exceed in its impact the Great Recession of 2008-2009 .
Each crisis alone could provide a seismic shock that permanently changes the international system and balance of power as we know it.That provides hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can prevail in response to this extraordinary challenge .
To date , international collaboration has been woefully insufficient .
If the United States and China , the world ’ s most powerful countries , can not put aside their war of words over which of them is responsible for the crisis and lead more effectively , both countries ’ credibility may be significantly diminished .
If the European Union can not provide more targeted assistance to its 500 million citizens , national governments might take back more power from Brussels in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is most at stake is the ability of the federal government to provide effective measures to stem the crisis .
In every country , however , there are many examples of the power of the human spirit—of doctors , nurses , political leaders , and ordinary citizens demonstrating resilience , effectiveness , and leadership .
That provides hope that men and women around the world can prevail in response to this extraordinary challenge .

John Allen, Nicholas Burns, Laurie Garrett, Richard N. Haass, G. John Ikenberry, Kishore Mahbubani, Shivshankar Menon, Robin Niblett, Joseph S. Nye Jr., Shannon K. O'Neil, Kori Schake and Stephen M. Walt

Like the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the coronavirus pandemic is a world-shattering event whose far-ranging consequences we can only begin to imagine today.
Like the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the coronavirus pandemic is a world-shattering event whose far-ranging consequences we can only begin to imagine today.
This much is certain: Just as this disease has shattered lives, disrupted markets and exposed the competence (or lack thereof) of governments, it will lead to permanent shifts in political and economic power in ways that will become apparent only later.
To help us make sense of the ground shifting beneath our feet as this crisis unfolds, Foreign Policy asked 12 leading thinkers from around the world to weigh in with their predictions for the global order after the pandemic.—Stefan Theil, deputy editor
A World Less Open, Prosperous, and Free
By Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University
The pandemic will strengthen the state and reinforce nationalism. Governments of all types will adopt emergency measures to manage the crisis, and many will be loath to relinquish these new powers when the crisis is over.
COVID-19 will also accelerate the shift in power and influence from West to East. South Korea and Singapore have responded best, and China has reacted well after its early mistakes. The response in Europe and America has been slow and haphazard by comparison, further tarnishing the aura of the Western “brand.”
What won’t change is the fundamentally conflictive nature of world politics. Previous plagues did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation. Previous plagues—including the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919—did not end great-power rivalry nor usher in a new era of global cooperation. Neither will COVID-19. We will see a further retreat from hyperglobalization, as citizens look to national governments to protect them and as states and firms seek to reduce future vulnerabilities.
In short, COVID-19 will create a world that is less open, less prosperous, and less free. It did not have to be this way, but the combination of a deadly virus, inadequate planning, and incompetent leadership has placed humanity on a new and worrisome path.
The End of Globalization as We Know It
By Robin Niblett, the director and chief executive of Chatham House
The coronavirus pandemic could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of economic globalization. China’s growing economic and military power had already provoked a bipartisan determination in the United States to decouple China from U.S.-sourced high technology and intellectual property and try to force allies to follow suit. Increasing public and political pressure to meet carbon emissions reduction targets had already called into question many companies’ reliance on long-distance supply chains. Now, COVID-19 is forcing governments, companies, and societies to strengthen their capacity to cope with extended periods of economic self-isolation.
It seems highly unlikely in this context that the world will return to the idea of mutually beneficial globalization that defined the early 21st century. And without the incentive to protect the shared gains from global economic integration, the architecture of global economic governance established in the 20th century will quickly atrophy. It will then take enormous self-discipline for political leaders to sustain international cooperation and not retreat into overt geopolitical competition.
Proving to their citizens that they can manage the COVID-19 crisis will buy leaders some political capital. But those who fail will find it hard to resist the temptation to blame others for their failure.
A More China-Centric Globalization
By Kishore Mahbubani, a distinguished fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute and the author of Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy
The COVID-19 pandemic will not fundamentally alter global economic directions. It will only accelerate a change that had already begun: a move away from U.S.-centric globalization to a more China-centric globalization.
Why will this trend continue? The American population has lost faith in globalization and international trade. Free trade agreements are toxic, with or without U.S. President Donald Trump. By contrast, China has not lost faith. Why not? There are deeper historical reasons. Chinese leaders now know well that China’s century of humiliation from 1842 to 1949 was a result of its own complacency and a futile effort by its leaders to cut it off from the world. By contrast, the past few decades of economic resurgence were a result of global engagement. The Chinese people have also experienced an explosion of cultural confidence. They believe they can compete anywhere.
Consequently, as I document in my new book, Has China Won?, the United States has two choices. If its primary goal is to maintain global primacy, it will have to engage in a zero-sum geopolitical contest, politically and economically, with China. However, if the goal of the United States is to improve the well-being of the American people—whose social condition has deteriorated—it should cooperate with China. Wiser counsel would suggest that cooperation would be the better choice. However, given the toxic U.S. political environment toward China, wiser counsel may not prevail.
Democracies Will Come out of Their Shell
By G. John Ikenberry, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and the author of After Victory and Liberal Leviathan
In the short term, the crisis will give fuel to all the various camps in the Western grand strategy debate. The nationalists and anti-globalists, the China hawks, and even the liberal internationalists will all see new evidence for the urgency of their views. Given the economic damage and social collapse that is unfolding, it is hard to see anything other than a reinforcement of the movement toward nationalism, great-power rivalry, strategic decoupling, and the like.
Just like in the 1930s and ’40s, there might also be a slower-evolving countercurrent.But just like in the 1930s and ’40s, there might also be a slower-evolving countercurrent, a sort of hardheaded internationalism similar to the one that Franklin D. Roosevelt and a few other statesmen began to articulate before and during the war. The 1930s collapse of the world economy showed how connected modern societies were and how vulnerable they were to what FDR called contagion. The United States was less threatened by other great powers than by the deep forces—and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character—of modernity. What FDR and other internationalists conjured was a postwar order that would rebuild an open system with new forms of protection and capacities to manage interdependence. The United States couldn’t simply hide within its borders, but to operate in an open postwar order required the building of a global infrastructure of multilateral cooperation.
So the United States and other Western democracies might travel through this same sequence of reactions driven by a cascading sense of vulnerability; the response might be more nationalist at first, but over the longer term, the democracies will come out of their shells to find a new type of pragmatic and protective internationalism.
Lower Profits, but More Stability
By Shannon K. O’Neil, a senior fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead
COVID-19 is undermining the basic tenets of global manufacturing. Companies will now rethink and shrink the multistep, multicountry supply chains that dominate production today.
Global supply chains were already coming under fire, both economically and politically.Global supply chains were already coming under fire—economically, due to rising Chinese labor costs, U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war, and advances in robotics, automation, and 3D printing, as well as politically, due to real and perceived job losses, especially in mature economies. COVID-19 has now broken many of these links: Factory closings in afflicted areas have left other manufacturers—as well as hospitals, pharmacies, supermarkets, and retail stores—bereft of inventories and products.
On the other side of the pandemic, more companies will demand to know more about where their supplies come from and will trade off efficiency for redundancy. Governments will intervene as well, forcing what they consider strategic industries to have domestic backup plans and reserves. Profitability will fall, but supply stability should rise.
This Pandemic Can Serve a Useful Purpose
By Shivshankar Menon, a distinguished fellow at Brookings India, a former national security advisor to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and a visiting professor at Ashoka University
It is early days yet, but three things seem apparent. First, the coronavirus pandemic will change our politics, both within states and between them. It is to the power of government that societies—even libertarians—have turned. Government’s relative success in overcoming the pandemic and its economic effects will exacerbate or diminish security issues and the recent polarization within societies. Either way, government is back. Experience so far shows that authoritarians or populists are no better at handling the pandemic. Indeed, the countries that responded early and successfully, such as Korea and Taiwan, have been democracies—not those run by populist or authoritarian leaders.
This is not yet the end of an interconnected world. The pandemic itself is proof of our interdependence.
Secondly, this is not yet the end of an interconnected world. The pandemic itself is proof of our interdependence. But in all polities, there is already a turning inward, a search for autonomy and control of one’s own fate. We are headed for a poorer, meaner, and smaller world.
Finally, there are signs of hope and good sense. India took the initiative to convene a video conference of all South Asian leaders to craft a common regional response to the threat. If the pandemic shocks us into recognizing our real interest in cooperating multilaterally on the big global issues facing us, it will have served a useful purpose.
American Power Will Need a New Strategy
By Joseph S. Nye, Jr., a university distinguished service professor at Harvard University and the author of Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump
In 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a new national security strategy that focuses on great-power competition. COVID-19 shows this strategy to be inadequate. Even if the United States prevails as a great power, it cannot protect its security by acting alone. As Richard Danzig summarized the problem in 2018: “Twenty-first century technologies are global not just in their distribution, but also in their consequences. Pathogens, AI systems, computer viruses, and radiation that others may accidentally release could become as much our problem as theirs. Agreed reporting systems, shared controls, common contingency plans, norms, and treaties must be pursued as means of moderating our numerous mutual risks.”
On transnational threats like COVID-19 and climate change, it is not enough to think of American power over other nations. The key to success is also learning the importance of power with others. Every country puts its national interest first; the important question is how broadly or narrowly this interest is defined. COVID-19 shows we are failing to adjust our strategy to this new world.
The History of COVID-19 Will Be Written by the Victors
By John R. Allen, the president of the Brookings Institution, a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general, and a former commander of the NATO International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
As it has always been, history will be written by the “victors” of the COVID-19 crisis. Every nation, and increasingly every individual, is experiencing the societal strain of this disease in new and powerful ways. Inevitably, those nations that persevere—both by virtue of their unique political and economic systems, as well as from a public health perspective—will claim success over those who experience a different, more devastating outcome. To some, this will appear as a great and definitive triumph for democracy, multilateralism, and universal health care. To others, it will showcase the clear “benefits” of decisive, authoritarian rule.To some, this will appear as a great and definitive triumph for democracy. To others, it will showcase the clear “benefits” of authoritarian rule.
Either way, this crisis will reshuffle the international power structure in ways we can only begin to imagine. COVID-19 will continue to depress economic activity and increase tension between countries. Over the long term, the pandemic will likely significantly reduce the productive capacity of the global economy, especially if businesses close and individuals detach from the labor force. This risk of dislocation is especially great for developing nations and others with a large share of economically vulnerable workers. The international system will, in turn, come under great pressure, resulting in instability and widespread conflict within and across countries.
A Dramatic New Stage in Global Capitalism
By Laurie Garrett, a former senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Pulitzer Prize winning science writer
The fundamental shock to the world’s financial and economic system is the recognition that global supply chains and distribution networks are deeply vulnerable to disruption. The coronavirus pandemic will therefore not only have long-lasting economic effects, but lead to a more fundamental change. Globalization allowed companies to farm out manufacturing all over the world and deliver their products to markets on a just-in-time basis, bypassing the costs of warehousing. Inventories that sat on shelves for more than a few days were considered market failures. Supply had to be sourced and shipped on a carefully orchestrated, global level. COVID-19 has proven that pathogens can not only infect people but poison the entire just-in-time system.
Given the scale of financial market losses the world has experienced since February, companies are likely to come out of this pandemic decidedly gun-shy about the just-in-time model and about globally dispersed production. The result could be a dramatic new stage in global capitalism, in which supply chains are brought closer to home and filled with redundancies to protect against future disruption. That may cut into companies’ near-term profits but render the entire system more resilient.
More Failed States
By Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The World: A Brief Introduction
Permanent is not a word I am fond of, as little or nothing is, but I would think the coronavirus crisis will at least for a few years lead most governments to turn inward, focusing on what takes place within their borders rather than on what happens beyond them. I anticipate greater moves toward selective self-sufficiency (and, as a result, decoupling) given supply chain vulnerability; even greater opposition to large-scale immigration; and a reduced willingness or commitment to tackle regional or global problems (including climate change) given the perceived need to dedicate resources to rebuild at home and deal with economic consequences of the crisis.Many countries will have difficulty recovering, with state weakness and failed states becoming even more prevalent.
I would expect many countries will have difficulty recovering from the crisis, with state weakness and failed states becoming an even more prevalent feature of the world. The crisis will likely contribute to the ongoing deterioration of Sino-American relations and the weakening of European integration. On the positive side, we should see some modest strengthening of global public health governance. But overall, a crisis rooted in globalization will weaken rather than add to the world’s willingness and ability to deal with it.
The United States Has Failed the Leadership Test
By Kori Schake, the deputy director general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies
The United States will no longer be seen as an international leader.The United States will no longer be seen as an international leader because of its government’s narrow self-interest and bungling incompetence. The global effects of this pandemic could have been greatly attenuated by having international organizations provide more and earlier information, which would have given governments time to prepare and direct resources to where they’re most needed. This is something the United States could have organized, showing that while it is self-interested, it is not solely self-interested. Washington has failed the leadership test, and the world is worse off for it.
In Every Country, We See the Power of the Human Spirit
By Nicholas Burns, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a former under secretary for political affairs in the U.S. State Department
The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global crisis of this century. Its depth and scale are enormous. The public health crisis threatens each of the 7.8 billion people on Earth. The financial and economic crisis could exceed in its impact the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Each crisis alone could provide a seismic shock that permanently changes the international system and balance of power as we know it.That provides hope that men and women around the world can prevail in response to this extraordinary challenge.
To date, international collaboration has been woefully insufficient. If the United States and China, the world’s most powerful countries, cannot put aside their war of words over which of them is responsible for the crisis and lead more effectively, both countries’ credibility may be significantly diminished. If the European Union cannot provide more targeted assistance to its 500 million citizens, national governments might take back more power from Brussels in the future. In the United States, what is most at stake is the ability of the federal government to provide effective measures to stem the crisis.
In every country, however, there are many examples of the power of the human spirit—of doctors, nurses, political leaders, and ordinary citizens demonstrating resilience, effectiveness, and leadership. That provides hope that men and women around the world can prevail in response to this extraordinary challenge.
This article is part of Foreign Policy’s ongoing series about the world after the COVID-19 pandemic. Other installments include:
How the Economy Will Look After the Pandemic by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Robert J. Shiller, Gita Gopinath, Carmen M. Reinhart, Adam Posen, Eswar Prasad, Adam Tooze, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Kishore Mahbubani
How Urban Life Will Be Transformed by Richard Florida, Edward Glaeser, Maimunah Mohd Sharif, Kiran Bedi, Thomas J. Campanella, Chan Heng Chee, Dan Doctoroff, Bruce Katz, Rebecca Katz, Joel Kotkin, Robert Muggah, Janette Sadik-Khan
The Future of Government by James Crabtree, Robert D. Kaplan, Robert Muggah, Kumi Naidoo, Shannon K. O’Neil, Adam Posen, Kenneth Roth, Bruce Schneier, Stephen M. Walt, Alexandra Wrage
The Future of Travel by James Fallows, Vivek Wadhwa, Pico Iyer, Rolf Potts, Elizabeth Becker, James Crabtree, Alexandre de Juniac
The Future of Entertainment, Culture, and Sports by Audrey Azoulay, Rahul Bhatia, Rick Cordella, Mark C. Hanson, Baltasar Kormakur, Jonathan Kuntz, David Clay Large, James S. Snyder
The Future of Schools and Universities by Arne Duncan, Andreas Schleicher, Mona Mourshed, Jennifer Nuzzo, Ludger Woessmann, Salvatore Babones, Davesh Kapur, Michael D. Smith, Dick Startz


foreignpolicy--2020-03-20--It’s Time for Congress to Go Remote

It’s Time for Congress to Go Remote

It ’ s Time for Congress to Go Remote The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is just shy of 58 years old .
In the Senate , it ’ s nearly 63 years .
Despite the rise of rare figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , just 29 when she took office , the United States has far and away one of the oldest legislatures in the Western world .
The average age of members in the lower houses of the United Kingdom , Germany , Australia , and Canada is around 50 .
It ’ s several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The positively geriatric nature of America ’ s legislature rivals that of Japan , a country where the median age is about a decade older .
Even America ’ s likely presidential candidates this year are older than ever—between them , Joe Biden and Donald Trump will have spent 151 years on earth by Election Day , an all-time record .
It ’ s even worse when you consider that an influx of relatively young members has skewed the median .
Around 15 percent of the House and fully a quarter of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Much has been written about how the disparity between the age of elected officials and their constituents is bad for democracy .
But in a time of coronavirus pandemic , when a fast-moving virus presents a particularly acute risk for those over 70 , it is positively dangerous .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that roughly a third of all observed cases of COVID-19 in seniors resulted in hospitalization .
The case fatality rate for those older than 65 is estimated at between 3 and 11 percent from the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range—which includes four senators—and it ’ s 10 to 27 percent .
Hospitalization rates also soar with age .
Add onto that that the virus is killing twice as many men as women , and the picture looks even uglier .
There are roughly three times as many men as women in both the House and the Senate .
Two members of Congress have already tested positive for the novel coronavirus .
The Iranian parliament , where 8 percent of members have been infected , shows how fast the virus can spread through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a country where theocracy and gerontocracy are closely mixed have already died .
Efforts to recruit a more diverse slate of congressional candidates have been underway for some time .
That process happens over the course of many elections .
But the United States can do something right now to limit the risk to its older legislatures : Stop bringing members into both chambers—physically , at least .
That doesn ’ t mean the work of government should stop .
On the contrary , both houses are needed to authorize essential spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president—or , alternatively , to reject or curtain attempts to exercise federal power .
Reps. , Eric Swalwell , and Van Taylor are proposing a solution : Let members vote remotely .
In a letter , on behalf of some 50 members of Congress , the three elected representatives call out the House leadership to change the rules so as to “ permit remote voting for Members of Congress during this national public health emergency.
” The argument is pretty compelling .
Remote and rural representatives , they argue , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Forcing all the members and their staff to walk the halls of the Capitol isn ’ t helping , either , they argue : “ Voting in the traditional method is not social distancing.
” “ We in Congress are asking businesses , schools , and local governments to execute strong plans to ensure continuity of operations , ” they write .
“ Congress should be no exception ” The Intercept has reported that multiple state legislatures are already exploring e-voting or digital sittings of their houses during the pandemic .
Holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely straightforward .
The Washington Post put together a primer on the constitutional requirements for quorum that would need to be addressed for something like this to go ahead .
Rather than explore the idea , though , leadership in both chambers rejected it pretty quickly .
“ We ’ ll not be doing that , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was similarly cool to the idea .
McConnell is 78 years old .
Pelosi is 79 .
Other countries have already adopted e-voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to allow North Macedonia ’ s accession was approved because Spanish senators met digitally , with all but five of the country ’ s 264 senators voting to approve the former Yugoslav republic ’ s bid to join the military alliance .
The European Parliament is following suit .
“ It will be the first plenary that will use the distance voting system .
In the face of this emergency , we must use all the means we have available , ” David Sassoli , the president of the European Parliament , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s aged political leaders are particularly at risk during this pandemic .
They better start acting like it .

The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is just shy of 58 years old. In the Senate, it’s nearly 63 years.
The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is just shy of 58 years old. In the Senate, it’s nearly 63 years.
Despite the rise of rare figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just 29 when she took office, the United States has far and away one of the oldest legislatures in the Western world. The average age of members in the lower houses of the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and Canada is around 50. It’s several years lower in the Scandinavian countries.
The positively geriatric nature of America’s legislature rivals that of Japan, a country where the median age is about a decade older. Even America’s likely presidential candidates this year are older than ever—between them, Joe Biden and Donald Trump will have spent 151 years on earth by Election Day, an all-time record.
It’s even worse when you consider that an influx of relatively young members has skewed the median. Around 15 percent of the House and fully a quarter of the Senate are age 70 or older.
Much has been written about how the disparity between the age of elected officials and their constituents is bad for democracy. But in a time of coronavirus pandemic, when a fast-moving virus presents a particularly acute risk for those over 70, it is positively dangerous.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that roughly a third of all observed cases of COVID-19 in seniors resulted in hospitalization. The case fatality rate for those older than 65 is estimated at between 3 and 11 percent from the data so far. Dip into the 85-plus range—which includes four senators—and it’s 10 to 27 percent. Hospitalization rates also soar with age.
Add onto that that the virus is killing twice as many men as women, and the picture looks even uglier. There are roughly three times as many men as women in both the House and the Senate.
Two members of Congress have already tested positive for the novel coronavirus. The Iranian parliament, where 8 percent of members have been infected, shows how fast the virus can spread through close-knit networks. Several important Iranian leaders in a country where theocracy and gerontocracy are closely mixed have already died.
Listen Now: Don't Touch Your Face A new podcast from Foreign Policy covering all aspects of the coronavirus pandemic Learn More
Efforts to recruit a more diverse slate of congressional candidates have been underway for some time. That process happens over the course of many elections.
But the United States can do something right now to limit the risk to its older legislatures: Stop bringing members into both chambers—physically, at least.
That doesn’t mean the work of government should stop. On the contrary, both houses are needed to authorize essential spending and approve requests for emergency authority by the president—or, alternatively, to reject or curtain attempts to exercise federal power.
Reps. Katie Porter , Eric Swalwell, and Van Taylor are proposing a solution: Let members vote remotely.
In a letter, on behalf of some 50 members of Congress, the three elected representatives call out the House leadership to change the rules so as to “permit remote voting for Members of Congress during this national public health emergency.”
Read More Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization, left, shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization, left, shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping Virus Competition Is Wrecking China-U.S. Cooperation Hopes Coronavirus efforts are a new battlefront—and Beijing is the only one in the game. Argument | Richard Fontaine Visitors to the Dobbins Outlook view the lights of Phoenix, which is now the fifth-largest city in the United States. Visitors to the Dobbins Outlook view the lights of Phoenix, which is now the fifth-largest city in the United States. Arizona Is Not Running Out of Water or Workers The state will remain a destination for foreign investment due to a skilled workforce, leadership in water conservation, and low tax burdens. Response | Danny Seiden Two adults wearing matching lanyards designating them as volunteers sit next to each other at a table with laptops in front of them. One of the volunteers leans to the side to look at the other's screen as he types. Behind the volunteers, other people sit at tables with laptops and phones. Two adults wearing matching lanyards designating them as volunteers sit next to each other at a table with laptops in front of them. One of the volunteers leans to the side to look at the other's screen as he types. Behind the volunteers, other people sit at tables with laptops and phones. Inside the White House-Backed Effort to Hack AI Hackers, students, and government officials gathered at DEF CON to push chatbots over the edge. Dispatch | Rishi Iyengar
The argument is pretty compelling. Remote and rural representatives, they argue, will be most disadvantaged as travel routes are disrupted. Forcing all the members and their staff to walk the halls of the Capitol isn’t helping, either, they argue: “Voting in the traditional method is not social distancing.”
“We in Congress are asking businesses, schools, and local governments to execute strong plans to ensure continuity of operations,” they write. “Congress should be no exception”
The Intercept has reported that multiple state legislatures are already exploring e-voting or digital sittings of their houses during the pandemic.
Holding remote sessions of Congress isn’t entirely straightforward. The Washington Post put together a primer on the constitutional requirements for quorum that would need to be addressed for something like this to go ahead.
Rather than explore the idea, though, leadership in both chambers rejected it pretty quickly. “We’ll not be doing that,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was similarly cool to the idea.
McConnell is 78 years old. Pelosi is 79.
Other countries have already adopted e-voting with some ease.
The final NATO vote to allow North Macedonia’s accession was approved because Spanish senators met digitally, with all but five of the country’s 264 senators voting to approve the former Yugoslav republic’s bid to join the military alliance.
The European Parliament is following suit.
“It will be the first plenary that will use the distance voting system. In the face of this emergency, we must use all the means we have available,” David Sassoli, the president of the European Parliament, said in a statement.
America’s aged political leaders are particularly at risk during this pandemic. They better start acting like it.