America grows more divided amid coronavirus crisis, as a distracted Trump sows discord - James Hohmann (WP)

America grows more divided amid coronavirus crisis, as a distracted Trump sows discord   By James Hohmann with Mariana AlfaroThe Washington Post, May 28, 2020  Email  More than 40 million Americans have filed claims for jobless benefits in the past 10 weeks, including 2.1 million new claims last week, according to Labor Department data released this morning. The novel coronavirus has now killed more than 100,000 people in the United States, and fresh polling from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the cascading societal fallout of the contagion: 48 percent of U.S. adults say they or someone in their household have postponed or skipped medical care; 39 percent say worry or stress related to the virus has had a negative impact on their mental health; 31 percent say they have fallen behind in paying bills or had problems affording household expenses like food or health insurance coverage; and 26 percent say they or someone in their household have skipped meals or relied on charity or government food programs since February. Another survey released last week showed that 14 percent of Americans say they know someone who has succumbed to the virus. “It’s as if every person in Edison, N.J., or Kenosha, Wis., died. It’s half the population of Salt Lake City or Grand Rapids, Mich. It’s about 20 times the number of people killed in homicides in that length of time, about twice the number who die of strokes,” Marc Fisher observes on the front page of our newspaper today. “There has been as yet no national requiem, no moment that captured the collective sense of loss, no president standing atop the ruins, rallying the nation through a bullhorn. …  “Denial has always been part of how people cope with death, and the early spread of the virus was accompanied by [President] Trump’s persistent assurances that the coronavirus wouldn’t amount to much. As late as mid-April, he said that the country’s coronavirus deaths would end up ‘substantially below the 100,000’ level, maybe as little as half that number. More recently, he has questioned the death tallies. … Most health officials agree that 100,000 is likely an undercount.” Trump tweeted this morning to acknowledge the grim milestone, but his public schedule this week contains no special commemoration, no moment of silence and no collective sharing of grief. “The president has fashioned himself as the nation’s cheerleader, without also taking on the traditional leadership role of consoler in chief,” Ashley Parker reports. Dartmouth religion professor Randall Balmer contrasts Trump’s handling of such a staggering loss of life to Franklin Roosevelt on D-Day in 1944, Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012. “Where is the expression of sorrow that we all feel? No one is articulating that for the nation,” said Balmer, who was written for decades about American religion and the presidency. “Other presidents have simply understood that as part of their job. … For it to work, you’d have to draw on some internal reservoir of, if not piety, at least empathy. I’m not trying to be political, but I just don’t see it in the current president.” Instead, Trump is poised to sign an executive order today that could roll back the immunity that tech giants have for the content on their sites. “Trump’s directive chiefly seeks to embolden federal regulators to rethink a portion of law known as Section 230,” per Tony Romm and Josh Dawsey. “The order would also seek to channel complaints about political bias to the Federal Trade Commission, which would be encouraged to probe whether tech companies’ content-moderation policies are in keeping with their pledges of neutrality. It would also require federal agencies to review their spending on social media advertising … The wide-ranging order comes two days after Twitter took the rare step of labeling one of the president’s tweets and linking viewers to news articles that fact-checked his claims. The move infuriatedTrump.” This will save no lives and create no jobs, although perhaps it will generate more billable hours for white-shoe law firms with First Amendment practices. Why does Trump care so much about not being filtered on social media? Our Fact Checker team analyzed thousands of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube posts and ads from Trump, his campaign and its surrogates. Doing so paints a picture of the alternative reality that the president’s reelection effort is trying to create for low-information voters who don’t follow traditional news organizations. “The data revealed the backbone of a five-point strategy to tell their version of the coronavirus story: rewriting mistakes, highlighting achievements, deflecting blame, declaring victory and creating distraction,” Meg Kelly and Elyse Samuels write this morning. “All presidential campaigns try to portray their candidate in the best possible light, but what is notable about the Trump campaign is that its social media reach allows the campaign to rewrite even the most recent history.”  With no evidence, Trump has suggested five times – this month alone – that individuals and entities may have committed treason against the United States. Over the past three years, JM Rieger notes, the president has accused the following people of committing a crime punishable by death that fewer than 30 people have been prosecuted for in American history: congressional Democrats, the news media, the Justice Department under Obama, Lisa Page, Jim Comey, Andy McCabe, Adam Schiff, the anonymous author of an op-ed and the attorney for the intelligence community official who blew the whistle on his Ukraine call. Attorney General Bill Barr, who career prosecutors say has politicized the Justice Department for Trump’s benefit, continues his push to investigate the president’s investigators.The latest news is that Barr has deputized John Bash, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, to review “unmasking” requests made by Obama administration officials. This is an offshoot of the investigation that’s underway by John Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, into the origins of the 2016 probe into Russian election interference, per Devlin Barrett. Meanwhile, another Trump tweet plunged Congress into chaos – and thwarted the renewal of vital authorities needed by law enforcement to keep tabs on potential spies and terrorists. An effort to pass a significant surveillance overhaul package collapsed in the 9 p.m. hour on Wednesday after the president unexpectedly urged Republicans to vote no, via Twitter of course, thereby fracturing a fragile coalition. The underlying law, called the USA Freedom Act, expired on March 15. The House had previously voted to reauthorize it, but the Senate amended the House version earlier this month to add civil liberties protections. House Democratic leaders abandoned the scheduled vote a few hours after Trump issued a veto threat on Twitter. “They have not determined when — or whether — the legislation might be revived,” Ellen Nakashima and Mike DeBonis report. “The pulling of the bill to reauthorize a number of national security powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act came a day after the president tweeted his disfavor, ostensibly on grounds that it fails to address what he calls ‘the greatest political, criminal, and subversive scandal in USA history.’ While he has never explicitly spelled out what he means, Trump has blasted the FBI for its flawed surveillance of a former campaign aide, Carter Page, and accused the government without evidence of spying on Trump Tower during the campaign. None of the now-expired authorities the bill sought to revive were at issue in Page’s surveillance.” Earlier in the day, House lawmakers cast the first remote congressional floor votes in history –over noisy objections from GOP leaders, who filed a federal lawsuit that calls proxy voting unconstitutional. “The new system of voting by proxy was pushed forward by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and fellow Democratic leaders this month as a temporary measure,” DeBonis reports. “The House passed the resolution — calling for sanctions against Chinese officials for harsh treatment of the Uighur ethnic minority in the Xinjiang region — on a 413-to-1 vote, with 69 yes votes cast by proxy. Republican leaders criticized the change as a breach of 231 years of House custom …  “The clause in Article I of the Constitution that mandates a majority quorum for the House to do business, they said, implies that such a majority must be present in Washington. Multiple legal scholars told the Rules Committee last month that the proxy voting system passed constitutional muster, noting that courts have long been reluctant to challenge the legislative branch’s ability to set its own rules. Those precedents are rooted in a pair of 1892 Supreme Court decisions, in Field v. Clark and United States v. Ballin, in which the court declined to overturn federal laws that were passed under new methods of determining a House quorum.” At a news conference in which he accused Democrats of dereliction of duty, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) refused to speak out against Trump’s baseless conspiracy theory about former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, whom the president has linked to the death of a staff member. “I was not here with Joe Scarborough. I don’t quite know about the subject itself,” said McCarthy, ducking when asked whether he agreed with the Wall Street Journal editorial that said Trump was “debasing his office” with claims that have caused more pain for an innocent family, including the woman’s widower. Trump has also, almost single-handedly, transformed the simple act of wearing a facial covering into the latest battle in the culture wars, dividing his own party in the process. Overnight, the president again mocked his Democratic challenger for complying with guidelines released by public health officials in his own government: Some businesses around the country are now kicking outcustomers who wear face masks. A Kentucky gas station and a Los Angeles flooring store are among the businesses that are banning mask-wearers. “If we’re only allowed to be at 25 percent capacity, I want them to be 25 percent of people that aren’t p-----, that aren’t sheep,” Kevin Smith, the owner of Liberty Tree Tavern in Elgin, Tex., told Teo Armus. “Being scared all the time isn’t good for your health. It suppresses your immune system.”

Quote of the day “There’s no stigma attached to wearing a mask," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a polio survivor who is up for reelection. (Politico)  Civil unrest is a real danger. A second night of protests over the death of George Floyd turned deadly.  The protests “turned chaotic as police fired rubber bullets from a rooftop,” Holly Bailey, Brittany Shammas and Kim Bellware report. “A peaceful protest earlier in the evening descended into disarray and looting. A group of officers stood in front of a nearby precinct and tried to disrupt the crowd with flash bang grenades and rubber bullets. At times, the tear gas was so thick, it wafted down neighborhood streets where people standing in their front yards were coughing and wiping at their eyes. … One person was shot by a pawn shop owner and died at a hospital, police told the Star Tribune, as looters ransacked a Target, Foot Locker and nearby small businesses. Mayor Jacob Frey (D) requested help from the state’s National Guard as local leaders pleaded for a peaceful resolution. … The scene followed the death of 46-year-old George Floyd on Monday …  "In the suburb of Oakdale, hundreds of protesters on Wednesday gathered outside the home of Derek Chauvin, the police officer who was captured on the video with his knee on Floyd’s neck. According to the Star Tribune, red paint was poured onto Chauvin’s driveway, and the word ‘killer’ was written on the garage door. … As demands for accountability rang out from Floyd’s family, politicians on both sides of the aisle, celebrities and other high-profile figures, [the mayor] called on the county prosecutor to arrest [Chauvin]. … Yet with several high-profile, fatal police encounters in recent years — along with efforts at reform — some activists couldn’t help but feel hopeless. … Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the Floyd family, said that without public pressure, he feared authorities would try to sweep the incident under the rug. But he said that with the video, ‘you can’t deny truth that you witness with your own eyes.’” Police chiefs around the nation responded with disgust to the news of Floyd’s death, seeking to reassure their cities. Police executives, including the heads of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Police Foundation, as well as police chiefs in Miami, Houston and Los Angeles denounced the officer's actions. (Tom Jackman) Floyd’s death sparked protests in at least three other major cities. In Los Angeles, protesters blocked the 101 freeway and clashed with officers, leaving at least one demonstrator injured, per the Los Angeles Times. In Chicago, protesters led by Chance the Rapper peacefully organized outside the city's public safety headquarters. “I’m sure there’s some black men and women officers, and white officers in this building that woke up sick to their stomach when they saw this video as well, and we’re standing in solidarity with all those people, and we’re just letting you all know that this s---’s not going to keep happening,” the singer said, according to CBS Chicago. And in Memphis, a silent demonstration turned into separate verbal confrontations between protesters, police and counterprotesters, the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported. The University of Minnesota announced that it will reduce ties with the Minneapolis Police Department. “University President Joan Gabel said in a letter to the university community that the school would no longer contract with the police department to provide additional law enforcement support for football games, concerts and other large events, or for specialized services — such as K-9 explosive-detection units — at university events,” per Valerie Strauss. Joe Biden called for a federal civil rights investigation into Floyd’s death. Biden commended the Minneapolis Police Department’s swift firing of Chauvin but said more needs to be done. “They have to be held more fully accountable,” he said. (Sean Sullivan) Trump tweeted last night that he asked the FBI to expedite its investigation. “My heart goes out to George’s family and friends,” he tweeted. “Justice will be served!” Flashback to July 2017: “Trump tells police not to worry about injuring suspects during arrests.”

Trump surfa no puxa-saquismo de Bolsonaro para tirar sarro do Brasil - Andrei Meireles (Os Divergentes)

Trump surfa no puxa-saquismo de Bolsonaro para tirar sarro do Brasil

Nem em seus momentos mais sombrios, a diplomacia brasileira foi tão capacho e recebeu tanto desprezo de um governo dos Estados Unidos.

Por

 Andrei Meireles

 -

Os Divergentes, maio 20, 2020, 7:04

Trump e Bolsonaro nos Estados Unidos

O que nessa pandemia do novo coronavírus rendeu a incondicional submissão do governo brasileiro a uma suposta parceria com a gestão de Donald Trump? O de mais concreto foi a pirataria com compras de respiradores e outros insumos básicos por estados brasileiros  tomados pela mão grande dos supostos aliados americanos. Em suas performances nas entrevistas coletivas, quando em dificuldade, Trump sempre apelou para ameaças ao Brasil, como o reiterado anúncio de que pode suspender os voos entre os dois países. Isso virou um descarado recurso em seus embates com a imprensa, mesmo consciente de que a epidemia nos Estados Unidos é maior do que a brasileira, por saber que o governo Bolsonaro vergonhosamente o agasalha.

Em nova entrevista nessa terça-feira (19), Donald Trump primeiro repetiu, com mais gravame, a mesma ladainha sobre os voos do Brasil para os Estados Unidos. “Não quero que esse povo venha para cá infectar americanos”. Depois seguiu em seu roteiro de mentiras. Disse que estava ajudando o Brasil com muitos respiradores. Insinuou inclusive que seriam milhares. Se fosse verdade, seriam bem-vindos. Estão fazendo muita falta. Pelo o que até agora se sabe, é mais uma cascata. A mentira torna mesquinho até o saudável hábito dos americanos de valorizar cada dólar que doam, afinal é dinheiro do seu contribuinte.

O embaixador americano Todd Chapman e o presidente Jair Bolsonaro – Foto Divulgação/PR

Nessa terça-feira, foi anunciado que o governo americano doou mais US$ 3 milhões (na maluquice do nosso câmbio diário, chegou a R$ 17 milhões). É uma ajuda com a pretensão de atender a Fiocruz e a 99 municípios brasileiros em todas as fronteiras do país nessa guerra bilionária contra a pandemia. Com até mais pompa, o novo embaixador dos EUA no Brasil, Todd Chapman, anunciou no começo do mês uma ajuda para o combate ao novo coronavírus de exatos US$ 950 mil. Vendeu essa grana como uma grande ajuda.

Em qualquer conta nas várias frentes de combate a ascendente epidemia no país, não passam de merrecas. O governo americano melhor ajudaria se impedisse a pirataria contra a desesperada tentativa brasileira de comprar equipamentos essenciais ao combate do novo coronavírus.

O ex ministro das Relações Exteriores do Brasil, Azeredo da Silveira, discursa na ONU

Nem quando, logo após o golpe militar de 1964, o embaixador Juraci Magalhães pronunciou a célebre frase “o que é bom para os Estados Unidos é bom para o Brasil”, a diplomacia brasileira se submeteu tanto à americana. Sequer agora tendo a justificativa da Guerra Fria. Atropela inclusive toda a doutrina militar de soberania nacional. Um dos pilares do sucesso internacional da diplomacia brasileira foi seu profissionalismo, que virou política de Estado na gestão do chanceler Azeredo da Silveira, no governo do general Ernesto Geisel.

Agrava esse problema o fato de Bolsonaro tratar a tragédia como uma pilhéria. Ele diz que não está nem aí. E insiste na mesma aposta sem base científica: “Quem for de direita toma cloroquina, de esquerda toma Tubaína”. E a vida que siga ou não nessa roleta presidencial.

O fãs de Bolsonaro levam a propaganda da Cloroquina às ruas – Foto Orlando Brito

Bolsonaro continua dando seu show de insensibilidade, com o aparente propósito de exibir nesse suposto machismo uma coragem que não demonstra quando enfrenta paradas reais. Sua paranoia diante  investigações, supostas ou reais, mostra uma covardia diante de qualquer ameaça a seu clã familiar.

Por causa desse receio, ele mete os pés pelas mãos e transforma seu governo em um pandemônio. Ninguém ali com alguma competência se sente seguro. Todos se sentem cada vez mais à deriva pelo piloto inseguro que perdeu o rumo. Que não sabe mais, apesar de cercado por uma penca de militares, como navegar nesse nevoeiro.  Sequer consegue enxergar que o Brasil só perde com a idolatria cega e de mão única do seu clã e de seus gurus a Donald Trump.

O que ainda piora todo esse quadro é a sensação de falta de altivez dos chefes militares.

É triste assim.

Ian Bremmer: Perto de Bolsonaro, Trump parece o Churchill, diz CEO da Eurasia (Veja)

Perto de Bolsonaro, Trump parece o Churchill, diz CEO da Eurasia

Em entrevista a VEJA, Ian Bremmer diz que o 'lockdown' é fundamental 

para salvar a economia e que o mundo sairá da crise mais desglobalizado

Por Eduardo Gonçalves - Atualizado em 27 mar 2020, 18h43 

O presidente da Eurasia, Ian Bremmer Richard Jopson/

Especialista em calcular o risco de crises no mundo, o presidente e fundador da consultoria Eurasia, Ian Bremmer, se tornou, no âmbito internacional, um dos maiores críticos à forma como o presidente Jair Bolsonaro tem lidado com a crise de coronavírus. Em suas análises diárias, ele já disse à população brasileira que pratique o “distanciamento social” de Bolsonaro e que, comparado com o brasileiro, o presidente norte-americano Donald Trump parece um estadista.

Comandada por Bremmer, a consultoria já fazia projeções de que o mundo passaria por um processo de instablidade política e desglobalização antes do surgimento da pandemia do coronavírus, o que agora só tende a se amplificar. Com escritórios ao redor do mundo, incluindo o Brasil, a instituição produz análises a clientes interessados em saber onde há mais oportunidades e menos riscos para aplicar os seus investimentos. Em entrevista a VEJA, Bremmer afirmou que Bolsonaro era a “melhor oportunidade” para a implementação de uma agenda reformista no país, mas que ele vem colocando isso a perder ao priorizar a economia na fase inicial de uma crise de saúde pública.

Como o sr. analisa os pronunciamentos de Bolsonaro e Trump nesta semana de que é mais importante preservar a economia do aplicar um isolamento total para conter o coronavírus? Os dois estão preocupados com os impactos econômicos da crise, e com a sua popularidade também. Mas Trump parece estar focado em medidas de isolamento e alívio financeiro, enquanto Bolsonaro está mais concentrado no lado econômico da equação. Só que a escolha entre a saúde pública e a economia é ainda mais desafiadora para Bolsonaro, dado que o Brasil não tem as mesmas reservas econômicas que os Estados Unidos. Globalmente falando, Bolsonaro está sozinho nesta equação e está apostando perigosamente cedo na preocupação majoritária com a economia em detrimento da saúde das pessoas que movem essa economia. O tempo dirá se eles pagarão um preço político por isso.

Por que o sr. escreveu que Bolsonaro é um “líder ineficaz”? Os governos que têm anunciado medidas mais drásticas estão sendo recompensados com amplo apoio público. Bolsonaro, por outro lado, insiste em subestimar a gravidade e detona os governadores que vêm adotando ações mais fortes. Isso pode lhe custar um preço muito alto do ponto de vista da opinião pública. O único político eleito que rivaliza com Bolsonaro em ineficácia é o presidente do México, Andrés Obrador, que continua percorrendo o país e fazendo campanha. Comparado com os dois, Donald Trump até parece Winston Churchill (o grande líder inglês na II Guerra Mundial). É importante dizer que o lockdown é fundamental para salvar a economia a longo prazo.

Em março de 2016, a Eurasia classificou o impeachment de Dilma Rousseff como “provável”, o que aconteceu meses depois. Bolsonaro também pode cair? Ainda não estamos na categoria do “provável”, mas esse erro de cálculo dele acaba pondo o afastamento no radar. O potencial de ele sofrer uma queda significativa em sua popularidade e um ambiente político desafiador pós-crise criam essa possibilidade. Agora, é claro, dependerá do que ele vai fazer nos próximos meses. Os momentos mais dramáticos ainda estão por vir. Cada vez mais, Bolsonaro demonstra não ter o caráter nem a capacidade de dar uma resposta efetiva. O único lado positivo é que ele tem um time altamente qualificado, como o ministro da Saúde e a equipe econômica.

Globalmente falando, Bolsonaro está sozinho nesta equação e está apostando perigosamente cedo na preocupação majoritária com a economia em detrimento da saúde das pessoas que movem essa economia

Logo após a eleição de 2018, a Eurasia avaliou que Bolsonaro era a “melhor oportunidade” de implementar uma agenda reformista e que as instituições brasileiras “continuavam sólidas”. Ainda concorda com isso? Sim, mas Bolsonaro está perdendo sua janela de oportunidade para fazer um bom governo. Antes dessa crise, víamos um círculo virtuoso, com um Congresso reformista e uma economia em recuperação. Esse círculo agora está quebrado com a crise. O Parlamento deve se concentrar em medidas de alívio de curto prazo, e o erro de cálculo do presidente pode levar a uma queda no seu apoio popular, o que o fará dobrar a aposta na polarização política. Algumas reformas ainda podem avançar, mas, com esses novos fatores em jogo, nossa equipe brasileira rebaixou as trajetórias de curto e de longo prazo do país. É um erro estratégico do presidente priorizar o crescimento econômico na fase inicial da crise.

Nos últimos relatórios, o sr. disse que a pandemia de coronavírus pode paralisar a globalização no mundo e até promover o fenômeno chamado de ‘desglobalização’? Pode explicar melhor. A trajetória da globalização já estava mudando, diante da guerra fria tecnológica entre os Estados Unidos e a China, bem como a importância reduzida do trabalho dos setores da indústria e serviços (também em grande parte por causa da crescimento tecnológico). Agora, com o coronavírus, teremos uma intensificação dramática desse processo. O mundo provavelmente se afastará mais das cadeias de suprimentos “just in time” para as de “just in case”. Também haverá uma escalada na tensão entre EUA e China.

O que o sr. acha do posicionamento de alguns setores da direita americana e brasileira de que as medidas de reação ao coronavírus podem causar mais danos do que a própria doença? Certamente, este é um dilema crítico. Permitir que a economia reinicie dá chances ao surgimento de novos surtos. A ausência de coordenação nacional e global torna esse problema ainda pior.

O erro de cálculo do presidente Jair Bolsonaro pode levar a uma queda no seu apoio popular, o que o fará dobrar a aposta na polarização política

É possível medir o impacto econômico que a pandemia terá no mundo? E no Brasil? Depois da crise, o mundo emergirá muito mais instável politicamente, o que será uma consequência muito diferente da que vivemos no estouro da bolha imobiliária de 2008 e depois do atentado de 11 de setembro de 2001. Nessas duas épocas, nós tivemos uma crise financeira global, mas a arquitetura geral da ordem geopolítica não mudou. O que nós vemos agora é o crescimento da desigualdade, da fragilização das democracias como o sistema de governança mais atraente, e da dificuldade do mundo em responder coletivamente aos desafios globais futuros, como a inteligência artificial e os problemas ambientais. No Brasil, há uma pobreza maior do que em países do hemisfério norte. Portanto, se o surto de coronavírus tiver a mesma dimensão do que nessas nações, a escala de sofrimento humano será muito maior.

A introversão do império sob Trump - Nicholas Burns (Foreign Affairs)

How to Lead in a Time of Pandemic

Nicholas Burns | March 25, 2020 | Foreign Affairs

What U.S. Foreign Policy Should Be Doing—But Isn’t—to Rally the World to Action The world has never before confronted a crisis quite like COVID-19, one that has simultaneously tested both the limits of public health systems everywhere and the ability of countries to work together on a shared challenge. But it is in just such moments of crisis that, under all prior U.S. presidents since World War II, the institutions of U.S. foreign policy mobilize for leadership. They call nations to action. They set the agenda for what needs to be done. They chart a path beyond the point of crisis. Unfortunately, President Donald Trump has spent the last three years demeaning and degrading these very institutions and denigrating the kind of U.S. leadership and global collective action they promote—which is one reason for the world’s inadequate response to the coronavirus pandemic thus far. To date, world leaders have done alarmingly little together to blunt the crisis. The United Nations Security Council is silent. The World Health Organization (WHO) offers a useful global clearinghouse but lacks a global megaphone to lead. European Union nations have defaulted to national solutions and closed borders to their neighbors for the first time in generations. China hid the crisis from the world in its critical early days. And Trump has been especially disengaged. Beyond individual phone calls with world leaders, he has made just one attempt to organize countries to band together—a single conference call with European, Canadian, and Japanese leaders in the G-7 forum he currently chairs.   Depending on how long it lasts, COVID-19’s impact could match that of a world war, in terms of the number of people it affects, the changes to daily life it brings on every continent, and its human toll. And the impact on business, trade, and markets could result in the most devastating global economic crisis since the Great Depression. Such worst-case scenarios will be hard to avoid without American leadership. National leaders, including Trump, have understandably focused first on addressing the threat to their own citizens. But the pandemic must be fought simultaneously at the global level, with the full support of powerful countries—those that have a capacity to organize, set priorities, and unite disparate and often conflicting national efforts. For all the changes to the geopolitical landscape in recent years, one basic reality has not changed: such global action is impossible if the world’s strongest country, the United States, is either absent or acting alone. THE CRISIS LAST TIME Compare the extraordinary inactivity in the face of the coronavirus pandemic with the global financial crisis of 2008–9. Governments led by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and then Barack Obama employed the G-20 to unite the world’s most powerful economies to work together on a global solution. Both Bush and Obama understood that the United States, with all its power and immense credibility, had to lead if the world was going to prevent the Great Recession from becoming a Great Depression. Throughout its history, the United States has been fortunate to have visionary, charismatic leadership at times of great crisis: George Washington during the Revolution, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression and World War II. Trump, unfortunately, has not proved himself to be anywhere close to such a leader. His character drives him to divide rather than to unite at home. His “America first” foreign policy instincts drive him to act alone in the world rather than in concert with others. He seems incapable of imagining that the United States might be made stronger and more effective by confronting a crisis in lockstep with its allies and partners. Since the start of the coronavirus crisis, those tendencies have defined the international aspects of Trump’s response. In his daily press conferences, he rarely mentions concrete work being done in tandem with other governments. He has initiated no significant international action. And he has dramatically weakened many of the federal agencies that would normally lead the global response to such a crisis: the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense (which he very unwisely disbanded in 2018). It was not a slip of the tongue last week when Trump referred publicly to the “Deep State Department.” Is it any wonder that the institutions of government he routinely derides, and has starved for funds and leadership, would prove so catastrophically unprepared? Any other recent American president would have confronted the crisis much more urgently from the start. The priority would have been the home front, of course. But both Obama and Bush, like many presidents before them, would have also understood the need for an all-out global effort, led by the United States and its allies, to confront the threat together. NOT TOO LATE The Trump administration has lost valuable time since December, but it is not too late to assemble an international coalition to begin to limit COVID-19’s ruthlessly efficient global contagion. What might such an effort look like? The administration should join with other global leaders to launch at least three high-level international efforts to tackle the most difficult challenges posed by the pandemic—one made up of top leaders, one made up of economic policymakers, and one made up of U.S. and Chinese officials. The first should be a G-20 leaders steering group to focus on the health and economic challenges ahead. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to start, should begin meetings via teleconference to discuss how to blunt both the health and economic impacts. This leadership group should meet weekly if necessary to assess progress and resolve the inevitable disputes and misunderstandings of such a massive global undertaking. They should appoint and empower trusted senior cabinet-level officials to meet daily to identify the roadblocks in the international response; to resolve practical problems impeding relief efforts; and to partner on long-term plans that can ultimately bring the crisis to an end. Trump can create this group at a first meeting this week. There is no time to waste. The agenda of this steering group will need to be broad and ambitious. The most urgent issue is to agree that national public health officials must exchange quickly and effectively accurate data on the number of people affected and tested and the mortality rate in countries around the world. This alone would be of inestimable help to the experts seeking to understand and model the impact of the virus and thus predict its arc going forward. There will need to be agreement on the central clearing-house for this exchange of information, whether that is the WHO or another body that can work more efficiently. These leaders must also push countries with greater capacity to agree on a joint effort to transfer material assistance, training, and know-how to countries with weaker public health systems. As the pandemic will likely persist for most of 2020, it will be critical for countries that have largely recovered to extend help to those in greatest need. That is unlikely to happen without top-down pressure from leaders such as Trump and Xi. It is also not too early for leaders to assign a group of eminent global public health experts to determine what has gone right so far, what needs to be urgently fixed, which international institutions are failing, and what (if any) new ones may need to be created. Leaders need to demand that governments be better prepared, individually and collectively, for the next crisis. (This is an especially acute weakness of the United States, of course, whose level of preparedness and early response has been among the weakest of any major nation.) The G-20 should also work to coordinate the many research universities and private companies working on a vaccine. Governments are not in most cases well suited to carrying out research themselves, but they can cut through regulatory red tape, provide seed funding, and, most important, agree on an equitable means of distribution once the vaccine is available. National governments have also struggled with how to help the hundreds of thousands of people stranded in foreign countries, with borders slammed shut with surprising speed in every part of the world. Embassies and consulates now need help to protect their citizens caught in the no man’s lands of the pandemic. The G-20 countries are in the best position to help organize special flights and humanitarian convoys. One has to go back 80 years, to the start of World War II, to find a time when so many people have been left helpless outside their countries’ borders. This high-level steering group would also allow leaders to communicate more effectively in advance of national decisions that will inevitably affect other countries. When Trump, for example, announced that he intended to stop travel by Europeans to the United States, he did so without any significant consultation with the European Union, whose leadership was understandably furious as a result. (That one act may for years color the way European governments and citizens view the United States.) Most important, in place of such dissension, world leaders should deliver a united message of resolve to fight the pandemic together and to plan for our ultimate deliverance from it. Even a simple public message of solidarity would help—particularly from Trump, who has reached out precious few times to convey American sympathy to those suffering abroad. The world needs hope, and these leaders can provide at least a measure of it. PREVENTING A GREAT DEPRESSION With major economies grinding to a halt, Trump and other leaders should also take personal oversight of a second high-level group, this one made up of finance ministers and central bank presidents from G-20 countries and others. In the face of the most serious economic crisis in nearly a century, their focus should be to more closely align fiscal and monetary policies to limit the severity of a likely global recession. U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and his central bank colleagues in Canada, Europe, and Japan set a good example earlier this month in coordinating a first tranche of common measures to stimulate the global economy. But these countries cannot hope to steer effective global action without officials from Brazil, China, India, and other rising powers at the same table. There are also some immediate problems that need fixing. One is to lower tariff barriers on the medical products and parts that will be essential to a more successful health response. This won’t be easy at a time of economic distress when the temptation of national governments will be to protect their own markets, but the costs of failing to do so will be enormous. Another is to evaluate the sanctions currently in place on governments such as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela and to lift any that are impeding vital humanitarian aid, at least temporarily. Citizens of these countries, who are as vulnerable as anyone to the coronavirus, should not pay with their lives for the sins of their governments. Just as important, uncontrolled outbreaks will threaten new waves of infections beyond their borders. WHEN TWO TIGERS UNITE Finally, the Trump administration needs to establish much more frequent communication between Washington and Beijing—between Trump and Xi themselves, between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his counterpart, and between Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin and his counterparts. As the two major global powers, the United States and China must do more to mitigate the worst aspects of the crisis and to provide public leadership. The low point of this crisis politically has been the failure of Washington and Beijing to set aside broader tensions and combine forces to combat the pandemic. If anything, distrust and hostility between the United States and China have gotten worse. During the last few weeks, they have fought a running war of words over who is ultimately responsible for the pandemic. Chinese officials set a low bar by claiming—falsely and outrageously—that the U.S. military planted the virus in Wuhan to weaken China. But Trump has not helped by referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.” For the sake of both their own citizens and the rest of the world, Washington and Beijing must stop the blame game and start working together on solutions. If China and the United States can’t communicate and cooperate effectively, it will be next to impossible to avoid further tensions—dividing a world that, now more than ever, should be united for common action. But there is also much at stake for the two superpowers’ reputation and credibility. While China is rightly praised for its rigorous social-distancing campaign and recent humanitarian aid to the European Union and others, it continues to come under intense (and deserved) criticism for initially suppressing information about the epidemic and, even now, for not sharing complete data on infections. Trump, meanwhile, is not even trying to lead globally. That image—of a United States that was not there to help during the most serious crisis in most people’s lifetimes—could do irreparable damage to how the rest of the world views the country going forward. A global crisis of this magnitude carries a final, and potentially deadly, risk. If countries turn against one another, competing for scarce resources and failing to communicate responsibly, it is not unthinkable that conflict and war could result. A WAR WITH ONE SIDE                                          When the world faced a very different crisis at the start of World War II, it was the confident and united leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that created the alliance critical to ultimate victory and forged a vision in the Atlantic Charter for what would come in its wake. Leaders and commentators have compared the current struggle to war. What makes this crisis different, though, is that every country and all citizens are now on the same side. To have a chance of prevailing, we need focused, determined, and effective leadership and genuine collaboration from Trump and other global leaders. They will largely determine whether the world can meet this existential test. In an age of nationalism and “America first,” the truth should be clear for all to see: nothing in human history has so clearly demonstrated how the fate of everyone—all 7.7 billion people—in our highly connected world is now linked.

Roubini on Coronavirus: Global Disaster - Tim Bartz (Der Spiegel)

I do not believe in a USA-Iran war, despite Trump's willingness to provoke one; but I do not think that Pentagon generals will allow it; there would be serious consequences for America, not only in foreign scenarios...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Star Economist Roubini on the Economic Effects of Coronavirus

"This Crisis Will Spill Over and Result in a Disaster"

Economist Nouriel Roubini correctly predicted the 2008 financial crisis. Now, he believes that stock markets will plunge by 30 to 40 percent because of the coronavirus. And that Trump will lose his re-election bid.

Interview Conducted by Tim Bartz

Der Spiegel, Hamburgo – 28.2.2020

Nouriel Roubini is one of the most prominent and enigmatic economists in the world. He correctly predicted the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble in addition to the 2008 financial crisis along with the ramifications of austerity measures for debt-laden Greece. Roubini is famous for his daring prognostications and now, he has another one: He believes that coronavirus will lead to a global economic disaster and that U.S. President Donald Trump will not be re-elected as a result.

DER SPIEGEL: How severe is the coronavirus outbreak for China and for the global economy?

Roubini: This crisis is much more severe for China and the rest of the world than investors have expected for four reasons: First, it is not an epidemic limited to China, but a global pandemic. Second, it is far from being over. This has massive consequences, but politicians don’t realize it.

DER SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Roubini: Just look at your continent. Europe is afraid of closing its borders, which is a huge mistake. In 2016, in response to the refugee crisis, Schengen was effectively suspended, but this is even worse. The Italian borders should be closed as soon as possible. The situation is much worse than 1 million refugees coming to Europe.

DER SPIEGEL: What are your other two reasons?

Roubini: Everyone believes it’s going to be a V-shaped recession, but people don’t know what they are talking about. They prefer to believe in miracles. It’s simple math: If the Chinese economy were to shrink by 2 percent in the first quarter, it would require growth of 8 percent in the final three quarters to reach the 6 percent annual growth rate that everyone had expected before the virus broke out. If growth is only 6 percent from the second quarter onwards, which is a more realistic scenario, we would see the Chinese economy only growing by 2.5 to 4 percent for the entire year. This rate would essentially mean a recession for China and a shock to the world. 

DER SPIEGEL: And your last point?

Roubini: Everyone thinks that policymakers will react swiftly but that’s also wrong. The markets are completely delusional. Look at fiscal policy: You can do fiscal stuff only in some countries like Germany, because others like Italy don’t have any leeway. But even if you do something, the political process requires a great deal of talking and negotiating. It takes six to nine months, which is way too long. The truth is: Europe would have needed fiscal stimulus even without the corona crisis. Italy was already on the verge of a recession, as was Germany. But German politicians aren’t even thinking about stimulus, despite the country being so exposed to China. The political response is a joke - politicians are often behind the curve. This crisis will spill over and result in a disaster. 

DER SPIEGEL: What role do the central banks have to play?

Roubini: The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are already in negative territory. Of course, they could lower rates on deposits even further to stimulate borrowing but that wouldn’t help the markets for more than a week. This crisis is a supply shock that you can’t fight with monetary or fiscal policy.

DER SPIEGEL: What will help?

Roubini: The solution needs to be a medical one. Monetary and fiscal measures do not help when you have no food and water safety. If the shock leads to a global recession, then you have a financial crisis, because debt levels have gone up and the U.S. housing market is experiencing a bubble just like in 2007. It hasn’t been a time bomb so far because we have been experiencing growth. That is over now.

DER SPIEGEL: Will this crisis change the way the Chinese people think of their government?

Roubini: Businesspeople tell me that things in China are much worse than the government is officially reporting. A friend of mine in Shanghai has been locked in his home for weeks now. I don’t expect a revolution, but the government will need a scapegoat.

DER SPIEGEL: Such as?

Roubini: Already, there were conspiracy theories going around about foreign interference when it comes to swine flu, bird flu and the Hong Kong uprising. I assume that China will start trouble in Taiwan, Hong Kong or even Vietnam. They’ll crack down on protesters in Hong Kong or send fighters over Taiwanese air space to provoke the U.S. military. It would only take one accident in the Strait of Formosa and you would see military action. Not a hot war between China and the U.S., but some form of action. This is what people in the U.S. government like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo or Vice President Mike Pence want. It’s the mentality of many people in D.C.

DER SPIEGEL: This crisis is obviously a setback for globalization. Do you think politicians like Trump, who want their companies to abandon production abroad, will benefit?

Roubini: He will try to reap benefits from this crisis, that’s for sure. But everything will change when coronavirus reaches the U.S. You can’t build a wall in the sky. Look, I live in New York City and people there are hardly going to restaurants, cinemas or theaters, even though nobody there has been infected by the virus thus far. If it comes, we are totally fucked.

"Trump is dead. Quote me on that!"

DER SPIEGEL: A perfect scare-scenario for Trump?

Roubini: Not at all. He will lose the election, that’s for sure.

DER SPIEGEL: A bold prediction. What makes you so sure?

Roubini: Because there is a significant risk of a war between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. government wants regime change, and they will bomb the hell out of the Iranians. But Iranians are used to suffering, believe me, I am an Iranian Jew, and I know them! And the Iranians also want regime change in the U.S. The tensions will drive up oil prices and lead inevitably to Trumps defeat in the elections.

DER SPIEGEL: What makes you so sure?

Roubini: This has always the case in history. Ford lost to Carter after the 1973 oil shock, Carter lost to Reagan due to the second oil crisis in 1979, and Bush lost to Clinton after the Kuwait invasion. The Democratic field is poor, but Trump is dead. Quote me on that!

DER SPIEGEL: A war against Iran is needed to beat Trump?

Roubini: Absolutely, and it’s worth it. Four more years of Trump means economic war!

DER SPIEGEL: What should investors do to brace for the impact?

Roubini: I expect global equities to tank by 30 to 40 percent this year. My advice is: Put your money into cash and safe government bonds, like German bunds. They have negative rates, but so what? That just means that prices will rise and rise - you can make a lot of money that way. And if I am wrong and equities go up by 10 percent instead, that’s also OK. You have to hedge your money against a crash, that is more important. That’s my motto: "Better safe than sorry!"