The Coronavirus Election

­

www.majalla.com

A Weekly Political News Magazine

20 Why Armenia and Azerbaijan Are

on the Brink of War

Issue 1821- October- 09/10/2020

the Best Way to Approach Coronavirus Anti16 What’s vaxxers? Through Personal Relationships, Not Scientists

36 Iran Faces its Third Deadly Wave

24 Don’t Put Belarus in the Middle

The U.S. Intelligence Community Is

28 Not Prepared for the China Threat

5 Tips to Help You Stay 46 Healthy this Winter 3

09/10/20

32 The Death and Life of Terrorist Networks

Editorial

A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng

Amid the tumult of coronavirus, the US presidential election is looming ever closer. When a global pandemic sickens more than 6 million Americans and kills over 210,000, its ripples -- economic, educational, environmental -- are everywhere, and there isn’t a single person not affected by them. In this week’s cover story we breakdown the political implications of the pandemic and the important effect it is having on the elections.

Senate Republicans are quietly organizing a judicial nomination poised to entrench conservative power in Washington for years to come. In his weekly column, Joseph Braude writes about the Senate Democrat’s attempts to mobilize public opposition to Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court on the basis of a perceived threat to Obamacare and why the Republican leadership is confident that they will have the votes to secure her confirmation.

As scientists around the world rush to find a vaccine to put an end to the death and economic destruction wrought by COVID-19, age-old fears and mistrust have been given a new lease of life. It didn’t take long after the first cases of coronavirus were reported for conspiracy theories and misinformation campaigns about the perceived danger of an eventual vaccine to begin circulating online. This raises the question: How do you convert people who believe unproven theories over the informed advice of medical doctors and public health authorities? Yasmine El-Geressi interviews Dr. Jonathan M. Berman, a researcher who studies the anti-vaccination movement who answers this question in his new book, ‘Anti-vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement.”

The Covid-19 pandemic is taking a dangerous turn in Iran amid a total denial from the Authorities. Elie Fawaz writes about Tehran’s third deadly wave and the regime’s willingness to sacrifice Iranian lives and make use of the pandemic to stay in power.

2

09/10/20

Editor-in-Chief

Ghassan Charbel Editorial secretary Mostafa El-Dessouki HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd 10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG Tel : +44 207 831 8181 Fax: +44 207 831 2310

‫الوكيل اإلعالني‬ ،www.alkhaleejiah.com :‫موقع إلكتروني‬ hq@alkhaleejiah.com :‫بريد إلكتروني‬ + 9714 3 914440 :‫ دبي‬،920 000 417 : ‫من داخل اململكة‬ +44 207 404 6950 :‫ لندن‬+00764 537 331 :‫باريس‬ +966 11 441 1444 : ‫ومن مختلف الدول‬

- ‫ طريق مكة‬- ‫ حي املؤتمرات‬- ‫مرخص لها الرياض‬ ‫تقاطع التخصصى‬ +44 207 831 8181 :‫ لندن‬- 4419933 ‫ هاتف‬:‫الرياض‬

S

napshot

4

09/10/20

A woman fixes her daughter›s face mask at a testing center in New Delhi, India, 19-COVID India has crossed .2020 ,3 .Saturday, Oct deaths on 19-confirmed COVID 100,000 Saturday, putting the country›s toll at nearly of the global fatalities and behind only the %10 United States and Brazil )AP(

5

09/10/20

S

napshot

)Reuters(

Sappers work next to an unexploded BM-30 Smerch rocket allegedly fired by Armenian forces in the fighting over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, near the Mingachevir Hydro Power Station in the town of Mingachevir, Azerbaijan October 5, 2020. REUTERS

6

09/10/20

7

09/10/20

W

eekly news

Kuwait’s New Crown Prince Pledges Commitment to Democracy and Peace Kuwait’s new Crown Prince Sheikh Meshal alAhmad al-Sabah took the oath of office in parliament on Thursday, pledging the Gulf Arab state’s commitment to democracy and peace and calling on Kuwaitis to shun divisions. The assembly unanimously endorsed the octogenarian Sheikh Meshal for the role in what has been a smooth succession that retained power firmly within the ruling family’s oldest ranks following last week’s death of Emir Sheikh Sabah al-

Don’t Be Afraid’ of COVID, Trump‘ Says as he Returns to White House that is Stalked by Illness

Ahmad. New ruler Emir Sheikh Nawaf al-Ahmad, 83, assumed power last Wednesday in the U.S.-allied OPEC member state as it faces a liquidity crunch caused by low oil prices and the COVID-19 pandemic against the backdrop of continued tensions between larger neighbours Saudi Arabia and Iran. Sheikh Meshal, addressing parliament, said Kuwait would uphold its regional and international commitments and “its path of peace and democratic approach”. He pledged to “raise the banner of popular participation and promote a tolerant spirit that shuns division.”

President Donald Trump told Americans “to get out there” and not fear COVID-19 as he returned to the White House on Monday after a three-night hospital stay to be treated for the virus and removed his white surgical mask to pose for pictures. Asked how he felt on arrival at the White House, where his staff has been hit by infections and his re-election campaign dogged by the pandemic, Trump said: “Real good,” according to a pool report by a journalist covering his return on behalf of other media.

Trump wore a mask as he left the helicopter that flew him back from a military hospital outside Washington and climbed the stairs of the White House South Portico, where he removed it and posed for pictures, waving, saluting and giving thumbs-up signs. He then turned to walk into the White House, his mask still in his pocket, TV footage showed. “Don’t let it dominate you.

Don’t be afraid of it,” Trump said in a recorded video message. “We’re going back, we’re going back to work. We’re going to be out front. ...

Don’t let it dominate your lives. Get out there, be careful.”

Trump’s Pandemic Record in Spotlight as Harris, Pence Trade Blows at VP Debate Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic challenger Kamala Harris clashed over the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic during their debate on Wednesday, as the White House struggled to contain an outbreak that has infected President Donald Trump and dozens of others. The policy-heavy, relatively sedate debate stood in stark contrast to last week’s chaotic presidential showdown between Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, which was marred by Trump’s constant interruptions and personal insults from both men. Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis, along with his age and that of Biden, added weight to the debate, as both Pence, 61,

8

02/10/20

said 235 patients had died in the past 24 hours, equalling a daily death toll high set on July 28, bringing the total death toll to 27,192. Officials have complained that many have defied regulations to wear face masks and some families used lockdowns to go on trips, helping spread the virus with hospitals nearly full. and Harris, 55, sought to demonstrate they were capable of assuming the office if needed. Either the Republican Trump, 74, or Biden, 77, would be the oldest U.S president to be sworn into office if victorious in November. But Wednesday’s confrontation seemed unlikely to alter the dynamics of a race that opinion polls show Biden is winning with less than four weeks to the Nov. 3 election, as both candidates evaded certain questions, stuck to talking points and avoided major gaffes.

Azeris and Ethnic Armenians Fight as Russia, U.S. and France Seek Ceasefire Azerbaijan and ethnic Armenians fought with artillery and heavy guns on Thursday as the United States, France and Russia stepped up efforts to secure a ceasefire and avert a wider war in the South Caucasus.Azerbaijan said the city of Ganja had come under fire, deep inside its territory. Ethnic Armenians who control the mountain enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh inside Azerbaijan said Stepanakert, its main city, had been shelled by Azeri forces.

In a sign of growing alarm in the region, the

head of a six-country military alliance that is led

by Russia and includes Armenia warned that the group could intervene if Armenian sovereignty were threatened. The continued fighting and rising tension underlined the difficulties facing U.S., Russian and French officials meeting in Geneva to try to halt fighting in which at least 400 people have been killed since it broke out on Sept. 27.

Trump Pulls Out of Virtual Debate with Biden, Worries He’ll be Muted

Nearly All of Iran on Coronavirus Red Alert as Cases, Deaths Hit Records Iran’s Health Ministry said on Monday nearly the whole country was on a coronavirus red alert as cases and deaths rose to record levels, with a member of the state task force’s warning field hospitals might be needed if people flout the rules. Ministry spokeswoman Sima Sadat Lari told state television that 26 of Iran’s 31 provinces were “red” zones, the highest alert level, while four were at the next “orange” level.

Authorities registered a record high 3,902 new cases in the past 24 hours, with the total number of identified cases in the worst-hit country in the Middle East rising to 475,674, Lari said. She

9

02/10/20

President Donald Trump on Thursday rejected plans to hold his next debate with Democratic rival Joe Biden virtually to reduce the risk of spreading COVID-19, complaining that his microphone could be cut off in that format. The first debate between the two, held last week before Trump disclosed that he had tested positive for the novel coronavirus, descended into chaos with the Republican U.S. president interrupting both Biden and the moderator throughout. “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate, that’s not what debating is all about,” Trump said on a phone interview with Fox Business after the nonpartisan commission in charge of presidential debates announced the new format on Thursday morning. “You sit behind a computer and do a debate - it’s ridiculous and then they cut you off whenever they want,” said Trump, who added that he was eager to hold campaign rallies with his supporters. His decision to forego the debate is the latest whiplash development in the presidential race ahead of the November election. Biden leads in nationwide opinion polls but they show a tighter race in many of the battleground states that may decide the election.

C

over story

The Coronavirus Election

The Pandemic Changed the 2020 US Presidential Race, and that’s Bad News for Trump Majalla - London Amid the tumult of coronavirus, the US presidential election is looming ever closer. When a global pandemic sickens more than 6 million Americans

and kills over 210,000, its ripples -- economic, educational, environmental -- are everywhere, and there isn’t a single person not affected by them.

The pandemic changed everything–from how the campaign is conducted to how we vote to what

10

09/10/20

Trump’s coronavirus infection has cast all of these past comments into sharp relief - once again raising questions about whether he took the pandemic seriously enough both on a national policy level and within the White House itself. week brought the virus into sharp focus with just a month to go until the November 3 election, and reminding voters yet again of the biggest public health crisis in a century.

Making matters worse for the president, may be that his downplaying from the start of the danger posed by the virus has come back to haunt him in the most personal way, making Democrat Joe Biden’s prudence during the campaign look prophetic.

US President Donald Trump tours a Honeywell International Inc. factory producing N95 masks during his first trip since widespread COVID19related lockdowns went into effect May 2020 ,5, in Phoenix, Arizona.

(Getty)

we value. It has cancelled conventions, relegated fundraising and campaigning to the digital realm and refocused the nation’s attention, bringing issues like public health and economic and racial inequality to the fore and prompting the public to revisit what characteristics it wants in its leaders. Add to this President Donald Trump’s diagnosis injecting a new level of uncertainty in an already unpredictable election just four weeks before America heads to the polls, and it’s obvious to see why Covid19- will have an important effect on the elections.

During the final stretch of the presidential race, Trump had worked frantically to attention away from his handling of the pandemic, urging more states to open fully and claiming the worst was over.

But the revelation of his coronavirus diagnosis last

11

09/10/20

Even as Trump has repeatedly suggested the country had turned the corner in the pandemic, voters have felt differently. Since late January, when the CDC first reported the first known case of COVID19- in the U.S., pollsters have been busy fielding surveys to measure just how concerned Americans are and what they think about the government’s response to the outbreak. Research by fivethirtyeight found that the share of Americans who are either “somewhat” or “very” concerned about infection has risen steadily since the virus began rapidly spreading in the U.S. in March. According to Reuters/Ipsos polls, every week since March, roughly 8 out of 10 American adults have said they are personally concerned about how the virus was spreading. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans.

It is also at the forefront of the minds of Americans who are expected to cast ballots in the election. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted Sept. -29Oct. 1, found that 26 percent of likely voters said the most important factor driving their choice for president was the candidates’ perceived ability to help the nation recover from the pandemic. They were less likely to cite other drivers, such as the candidates’ plan for the economy or the need for a “tough on crime” president.

C

over story

This has given Biden a clear advantage who has made Trump’s handling of the pandemic a leading theme of his campaign, while the president has tried to shift attention onto the matters such as the economy and well as his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court replacement after the death of late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The public has consistently given the president low marks for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, so anything that puts the focus on the disease is potentially damaging for his re-election prospects.

In the latest CNN poll, just %40 approved of how he has dealt with the virus while %55 disapproved.

Asked which candidate would deal better with the ongoing pandemic, %53 chose Biden while just %41 chose Trump. These numbers are consistent with virtually all the other polling data in the race. And as approval for Trump’s handling of the coronavirus has waned, so too has his standing in general election polling against Biden.

In a new poll, conducted after the first presidential debate but before Mr Trump’s Covid19announcement, Biden extended his national lead over Trump by a two-to-one margin. The Democratic candidate leads the president by 14 points, 53 to 39 per cent, up from an eight-point pre-debate lead, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey of registered voters. That gives Biden his largest lead in national opinion polling in the 2020 election campaign.

The President’s numbers on coronavirus and in election polling have been interestingly consistent

The President’s numbers on coronavirus and in election polling have been interestingly consistent over the summer. That is, again, bad news for him as it suggests that the American public have made up their mind on who they will vote for.

over the summer. That is, again, bad news for him as it suggests that the American public have made up their mind on who they will vote for. Moreover, nationwide statistics also show that early voting is hugely popular this year. With almost four weeks to go until the election on November 3, more than 4 million Americans in 31 states have already voted, either by mail or in person. At this time in 2016, the number stood at 75,000, according to the United States Elections Project, which compiles early voting data.

Complicating matters for the president will be that

12

09/10/20

U.S. President Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in the first presidential debate moderated

by Fox News anchor Chris Wallace (C) at the Health Education Campus of Case Western Reserve University on September 2020 ,29 in Cleveland, Ohio.

(Getty)

many Americans might recall what many would describe as the president’s sometimes careless attitude toward Covid19-. At the presidential debate on Tuesday, Trump belittled Biden for frequently wearing masks and not having campaign rallies that matched his own in size. “I don’t wear a mask like him,” Trump said. “Every time you see him, he’s got a mask.”

While the Trump has, at times, stressed the importance of social distancing and taking the virus seriously, he has spread misinformation during the pandemic. The most common form of untrue

13

09/10/20

statements by Trump promoted false ‘cures’ like hydroxychloroquine or the use of disinfectants inside the body. He also said the virus would disappear “like magic”; and attacked state officials who have imposed more aggressive mitigation measures and been slower to reopen businesses and schools than he would like.

Trump’s coronavirus infection has cast all of these past comments into sharp relief - once again raising questions about whether he took the pandemic seriously enough both on a national policy level and within the White House itself.

P

olitics

Senate Republicans Move to Consolidate Conservative Power in the U.S. Supreme Court Democrats Mobilize Opposition to Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Nomination, Republican Leadership Confident They Have the Votes to Secure her Confirmation

by Joseph Braude Amid the tumult of President Trump’s brief hospitalization with the coronavirus, and Democrats’ rising fortunes in the polls ahead of the November elections, Senate Republicans are quietly or-

ganizing a judicial nomination poised to entrench conservative power in Washington for years to come. While Senate Democrats have attempted to mobilize public opposition to Judge Amy Co-ney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court on the basis of a perceived threat to Obamacare, Republican

14

09/10/20

leadership is confident that they will have the votes to secure her confirmation.

DEMOCRATS ALIGN IN OPPOSITION, FOCUS ON THREAT TO ACA Almost immediately after her nomination was announced, leading Democratic Senators an-nounced they would boycott the traditional meetings with Judge Barrett. Sen. Richard Blumen-thal, D-Conn., who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and is likely to play a key role in con-firmation hearings, said he would oppose her confirmation “as I would any nominee proposed as part of this illegitimate sham process, barely one month before an election as Americans are al-ready casting their votes.”

Blumenthal went on to outline what have since shapen up to be Sen-ate Democrats’ main lines of attack on Judge Barrett: “Judge Barrett, like any Trump nominee, has already been vetted and screened to meet two tests: a commitment to striking down the Af-fordable Care Act and to overturning Roe v. Wade… If Judge Barrett’s views become law, hun-dreds of millions of Americans living w/pre-existing conditions would lose access to their health care.”

U.S. President Donald Trump (L) introduces 7th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 2020 ,26 in Washington, DC. (Getty)

While a considerable portion of anxiety on the Left undoubtedly originates in the perceived threat to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the United States, leading Democrats are keen to avoid stressing culture war issues in the lead up to a highly competitive election. This holds all the more so when polling indicates that Democratic candidates have a substantial hope of victory in erstwhile culturally conservative states such as Kansas, North Carolina, and Iowa. As a result, Democratic senators have centered their criti-cisms of Judge Barrett around the possibility that she might vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, in an upcoming court challenge.

As Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster, observed, “You look in a lot of states where Republican [Senate candidates] are performing below their fundamentals — Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina — and they need these Trump voters to come out for them.”

Likewise Brad Todd, a Republican strategist working on Senate races in battleground states, noted that “You take sub-urban Republican women who don’t like Trump and didn’t want to vote for him, and when the me-dia attacks Amy Coney Barrett over her faith or over the fact that she has seven children, they are going to see it as an attack on them.”

15

09/10/20

Among Republican leaders, there is a pervasive sense that the party is rallying behind the nomi-nation, leaving little incentive for GOP senators to demotivate their base voters by not voting to confirm Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice.

REPUBLICANS CONFIDENT OF THE OUTCOME For their part, Senate Republican leadership have shown little concern that any of these lines of attack could derail Barrett’s confirmation process. On October 5th, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings — the first formal step in the confirmation process — would begin on October 12, saying “Judge Barrett’s hearings will begin one week from today. Chairman Graham has all the tools to conduct a hybrid hearing, just like the 150 others the Senate has held this year. We will not stop working for the American peo-ple because Democrats are afraid they may lose a vote.”

Among Republican leaders, there is a pervasive sense that the party is rallying behind the nomination, leaving little incentive for GOP senators to demotivate their base voters by not voting to confirm Barrett as a Supreme Court Justice. “Republicans like to confirm Republican nominees,” said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Fox Business.

“You’ve got a number of sena-tors in difficult races.

When Republicans vote like Republicans, it works well for them.”

To date, that calculus has held firm. So far, only Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have indicated they oppose moving forward with a confirmation before the elec-tion. Given the Republican 47-53 advantage in the Senate, and the unlikelihood of further defec-tions in an election year, most observers favorably asses Barrett’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court and, with it, a decisive tilting of the balance in favor of conservatives in one of Washington’s most esteemed institutions.

I

nterview

What’s the Best Way to Approach Coronavirus Anti-vaxxers? Through Personal Relationships, Not Scientists Interview with Dr. Jonathan M. Berman, Author of New Book ‘Anti-vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement’

by Yasmine El-Geressi

this question in his new book, ‘Anti-vaxxers: How to Challenge a Misinformed Movement’, As scientists around the world rush to find a in which he explores the history of the antivaccine to put an end to the death and economic vaccination movement, from its nineteenthdestruction wrought by COVID19-, age-old century antecedents to today›s anti-vax activism, fears and mistrust have been given a new lease offering strategies for refuting its claims. of life. It didn’t take long after the first cases of coronavirus were reported for conspiracy Dr. Berman is an assistant professor of basic theories and misinformation campaigns about sciences at New York Institute of Technology the perceived danger of an eventual vaccine to College of Osteopathic Medicine at Arkansas begin circulating online. Perhaps unsurprisingly, State University, and one of the founders of the these theories have bred reluctance to use a March for Science movement who describes future vaccine against COVID19- and this is a himself as a “scientist, science educator, and a problem that may affect us all. This raises the science advocate”. question: How do you convert people who believe unproven theories over the informed advice of He was kind enough to take some time out of his day for this interview. medical doctors and public health authorities?

Dr. Jonathan M. Berman, a researcher who studies the anti-vaccination movement answers

Q - Your book explores the historical precedents of anti-vax arguments. How did vaccine

16

09/10/20

Even though some survey indicate skepticism of a future vaccine, I suspect that most people will want to achieve whatever level of immune protection they can get. may not trust a coronavirus vaccine?

The social distancing and lockdown measures we’ve had to implement due to SARS-CoV2- have disrupted many people’s lives and businesses.

Vaccine manufacturers and governments have done a poor job of communicating about the possibility of a vaccine, so people spreading conspiracy theories have been able to fill that space. In Russia, the Sputnik V vaccine was approved after promising tests, but only in 76 people. In the US there is a concern that Trump might pressure public health officials to issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine.

Dr. Jonathan M. Berman

Q - The public have been given mixed messages about the severity of the pandemic itself. Has the rumours emerge and spread before the era of confusion the public faces when medical experts are forced to compete with political actors social media? contributed to the anti-vaccine movement?

In the past, people sent pamphlets, conducted influence campaigns, wrote letters to the editor, Most of the time political actors are on the side lobbied governments, wrote books, held rallies of medical experts because they recognize the and drew political cartoons. Most of those are importance of good governance. There are rare quite similar to what anti-vaccine activists do occasions where politicians have taken public today, except their reach is perhaps broader than anti-vaccine positions, like with the Five Star it was before. An unintended consequence of Movement in Italy. When politicians do come out social media is that it allows us to isolate ourselves against vaccination, or spread misinformation it from sources of information that challenge our undermines trust. senses of identity. We can access memes, news stories, and anecdotes that continually reinforce Q - Even before a vaccine has been approved, what we want to believe and how we want to public health experts are watching as confidence see ourselves. Anti-vaccine feelings emerge time in a hypothetical vaccine plummets — and and again for a lot of reasons, but it has much to they’re already trying to figure out how to win do with fear, and control. Many people are wary back the public’s trust. You argue in your book of governments overreaching, or forcing medical that ‹people change their own minds; we can›t do it for them.’ From your vantage point, how procedures on them. should health experts and governments engage Q - What are the main reasons why the public with vaccine opponents?

17

09/10/20

I

nterview

It starts with having a solid communications plan.

When they don’t say anything, other entities such as drug company CEOs, conspiracy theorists, and anti-vaccine activists fill that void. Fortunately many more people get vaccinated than surveys about doubts usually indicate, but right now we need transparency about study designs, a promise not to seek EUAs before completion of phase three trials, and other assurances that if a vaccine is approved it has gone through the appropriate process.

Q - You argue that effective pro-vaccination efforts should emphasize cultural aspects rather than battling social media posts. Could you kindly elaborate?

Parents look to what their neighbors, peers, religious leaders and family are doing when they make decisions about parenting. The assurances of a scientist who works at a large corporation, or for the government of a foreign country just aren’t necessarily very reassuring. People who understand the importance of vaccination can reach out to their trust networks, and show them how they feel and the importance of vaccination.

One statement from your cousin might have more impact than a thousand statements from scientists.

Q - Complicating matters is the partisan nature a political statement against Trump and as the of the public health crisis, as the use of masks administration has been accused of pressuring was seen by a vocal minority of Americans as health agencies to expedite the vaccine-approval process. How warranted are those fears that politics is driving the Covid19- vaccine?

Vaccine manufacturers and governments have done a poor job of communicating about the possibility of a vaccine, so people spreading conspiracy theories have been able to fill that space.

So far I haven’t seen any evidence that the vaccine has been rushed, and it’s not immediately clear that there will be an effort to rush one. People are worried that it might happen because of the EUA for hydroxychloroquine, which more and more is being shown not to be effective, and for convalescent plasma, the data for which isn’t really in yet. It isn’t out of character for Trump to do anything he can to attempt to win (even if it endangers lives), but my hope is that the people

18

09/10/20

People who understand the importance of vaccination can reach out to their trust networks, and show them how they feel and the importance of vaccination. One statement from your cousin might have more impact than a thousand statements from scientists. one who confirms the beliefs you already hold.

Q - Is vaccine hesitancy as widespread in lowincome countries as it seems to be in high-income countries?

Worldwide the biggest rate limiting factor to vaccine uptake is availability. If vaccines are available, usually people will be vaccinated.

In developed countries anti-vaxxers tend to be wealthier and live in suburbs. When we look at rates of vaccine hesitancy worldwide they tend to be higher than the rate of vaccine refusal.

Q - Has the anti-vaccine movement damaged the trust in the safety of a vaccine to such an extent that it could disrupt the eradication of the virus?

A protester with sign saying Covid19vaccination is the real intention of the whole epidemic, during a rally to protest provincial and federal shut down to control the spread of Codid19- at Queens Park in Toronto, Canada, on April ,25 2020. (Getty)

in those agencies won’t be pressured.

Q - It seems that the anti-vaccine movement is a symptom of the larger issue, which is a real problem with a loss of trust in experts and expertise. What are the reasons behind ‘expert rejection’ and what is the best approach to deal with a crisis of confidence?

I think skepticism of expertise is necessary but not sufficient for vaccine denial. I see that as less that people are actively going out of their way to ignore experts (although that often happens), but more often people are evaluating the wrong people as experts. If you can select between two different people to listen to, and you don’t have any other reason to pick someone, you’ll pick the

19

09/10/20

In either case it is unlikely that SARS-CoV2will be totally eradicated. We’ve only eradicated two diseases entirely: Smallpox, and rinderpest, which doesn’t affect humans. Smallpox took almost 200 years of vaccination to eliminate.

We’re getting close with polio. The more likely scenario is that it becomes more rare over time, and we gradually succeed in eliminating endogenous transmission on a country-bycountry basis. There are multiple vaccines being developed in different countries, so the story of treating the pandemic is going to be a long one before people should feel safe in crowds again.

Even though some survey indicate skepticism of a future vaccine, I suspect that most people will want to achieve whatever level of immune protection they can get.

P

olitics

Why Armenia and Azerbaijan Are on the Brink of War

Local Tensions Meet Global Rivalries in Nagorno-Karabakh

by Jeffrey Mankoff

the last days of the Soviet Union. Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding regions have seen periodic outbursts On September 27, significant fighting broke out be - of violence in recent years, but the current fighting is tween the militaries of Armenia and Azerbaijan, two the most serious since Armenia and Azerbaijan signed states that have been locked in an intractable conflict a cease-fire in 1994. over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh since Domestic political factors in both countries militate

20

09/10/20

against compromise. The international context surrounding the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has also shifted in ways that complicate efforts to peacefully address the underlying dispute. In particular, Turkey’s growing involvement in a conflict in which Russia has long been the dominant player risks both giving the protagonists-especially Azerbaijan-an incentive to keep fighting and opening up a new front in the Turkish-Russian rivalry that has already engulfed Syria, Libya, and to a lesser extent Ukraine.

A FROZEN CONFLICT HEATS UP

A Russian army T-72-B3 tank fires during military exercises at the Raevsky range in Southern Russia on September 2020 ,23 during the “Caucasus2020-” military drills gathering China, Iran, Pakistan and Myanmar troops, along with ex-Soviet Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus.

(Getty)

The origins of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be traced back to the Kremlin’s decision to include the Armenian-majority region within Soviet Azerbaijan.

When Moscow relaxed restrictions on popular mobilization in the late 1980s, ethnic Armenians began demanding Nagorno-Karabakh’s transfer to Armenia.

Moscow refused, and when the Soviet Union collapsed a few years later, a full-scale war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, leaving around 30,000 dead and over one million displaced. With Azerbaijan led by the pan-Turkic nationalist Abulfaz Elchibey for much of the conflict, Russian forces largely supported the Armenian side. A Russian-brokered cease-fire ended the war in May 1994, but not the underlying dispute: today, Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding districts are under Armenian control, but Azerbaijan regards it as illegally occupied. Although Nagorno-Karabakh typically gets little attention in the West, it is perhaps the most dangerous flash point across post-Soviet Eurasia.

The current clashes broke out on September 27, with barrages of artillery and the deployment of heavy armor along the Line of Contact separating Armeniancontrolled Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan proper.

While each side blames the other for firing the first shot, local observers have reported for weeks that escalation seemed imminent. Both countries declared martial law and partially mobilized their reserves, suggesting an expectation of sustained conflict. Clips of this week’s fighting posted online show evidence of significant conflict involving artillery, armor, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and infantry forces. On Monday, Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, came under artillery fire.

This week’s clashes are hardly the first since the 1994 cease-fire. Sporadic sniping across the Line of Contact

21

09/10/20

The scale of the ongoing clashes, Turkey’s more prominent role, and the potential for the conflict to spill over into other contested regions have already raised the stakes considerably. is common. In April 2016, an Azerbaijani offensive recaptured several strategic high points, leaving around 200 dead. Although Moscow was able to convince the two governments to return to the cease-fire after a few days, the clash was a warning sign that the status quofrozen in place since 1994-was in danger of unraveling.

Fighting along the Line of Contact broke out again in July 2020, raising tensions and expectations of further conflict.

Unlike previous bouts of fighting, this one may result in significant changes to the status quo. Baku and Yerevan both face increasing pressure to resort to harsh measures. In Armenia, the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan-which came to power amid a popular uprising in 2018 that Russia largely opposed-is worried about what it sees as Moscow’s increasingly ambivalent support for maintaining the status quo. Despite some initial indications that he would be more open to a negotiated solution, Pashinyan has taken a harder line, including calling for Nagorno-Karabakh to be formally integrated into Armenia.

In Azerbaijan, an economic downturn and frustration at the authoritarian rule of President Ilham Aliyev have fed popular discontent. As the losing side in the initial war, Baku has made public calls for the return of Nagorno-Karabakh to mobilize nationalist support but risks being outflanked by public opinion. During the fighting this summer, protesters stormed the parliament building in Bakudemanding war with Yerevan.

The fighting so far has encompassed an Azerbaijani offensive against Fizuli and Jabrayil, two of the Armenian-occupied districts outside Nagorno-Karabakh whose relatively flat terrain facilitates offensive operations.

The bulk of their Azeri-majority population fled during the 1990s war, and in recent years, Yerevan has started settling them with Armenians. While the overall

P

olitics

population of the two districts remains low, a continued Azerbaijani offensive into Nagorno-Karabakh proper could result in significant refugee flows, possibly in the hundreds of thousands.

ON THE FRONTLINES OF EMPIRE

Unlike many other so-called frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union, the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is driven almost entirely by local actors. Russia remains the most important outside actor, but its ability to manage, much less control, the conflict is limited.

Russia maintains upward of 5,000 soldiers in Armenia, which most Armenians tolerate as a guarantee of their security. Although it has sided with Armenia throughout the conflict, Moscow has also cultivated relations with Azerbaijan and is the leading supplier of weapons to both sides. As Azerbaijan’s relations with the West have deteriorated in recent years amid declining interest in its oil and gas reserves and growing concern about Aliyev’s authoritarian rule, Russia has made additional inroads with Baku.

While Moscow does not call the shots on the ground, both sides understand that any resolution to the conflict can come only with Russian support. During previous rounds of fighting (including in July), Russian officials were instrumental in brokering a truce. Today, Russia has little interest in a wider conflict, which could force it to make difficult decisions about how far to take its

In Turkey’s growing involvement in a conflict in which Russia has long been the dominant player risks both giving the protagonists-especially Azerbaijan-an incentive to keep fighting and opening up a new front in the Turkish-Russian rivalry that has already engulfed Syria, Libya, and to a lesser extent Ukraine.

commitments to Armenia and to devote additional resources to the South Caucasus at a time when it is already engaged on multiple other fronts.

ENTER THE TURKS Although Russia remains the most important power broker, another external power with historical ties to the region has increasingly sought to shape the outcome of the conflict. Turkey sided with Azerbaijan in the initial conflict in the 1990s, and the two countries share close ethnic and cultural ties. Commentators and officials-mostly Turks-describe the relationship as “one nation, two states.” Until recently, however, Turkey’s involvement in the dispute was relatively limited. But as Ankara has adopted a more assertive posture in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it has become more forthright in its support for Azerbaijan.

Over the past year, Turkey has sold Azerbaijan a wide

22

09/10/20

People gather around the coffin of an Azeri serviceman who is said was killed in fighting with Armenian separatists over the breakaway Nagorny Karabakh region, during a funeral ceremony in a settlement in Azerbaijan’s Beylagan district on September 2020 ,30.

(Getty)

especially in light of the World War I-era massacres of Armenians by Ottoman forces.

Russo-Turkish relations have thrived despite the two countries’ postimperial competition. But Turkey’s intervention in Nagorno-Karabakh is Ankara’s most overt challenge to Russian influence in the former Soviet Union, where Moscow is extremely protective of its claims to preeminence. Even if Russia remains committed to limiting the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the overlapping presence of Russian and Turkish forces in many other theaters gives Moscow multiple opportunities to escalate. Indeed, Turkey’s direct involvement in Nagorno-Karabakh raises the stakes not only in the South Caucasus but throughout the areas where Ankara and Moscow are at odds. Already, the two countries back opposing sides in the Libyan and Syrian conflicts, where their proxies have engaged in occasional clashes, and have incompatible ambitions in the Balkans and Ukraine. Ankara likely sees its involvement in Nagorno-Karabakh in part as a bargaining chip not only in the Caucasus but in its wider rivalry with Moscow. And the involvement of Turkish mercenaries from Syria, another theater where Russian and Turkish interests clash, suggests that this time the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may not stay confined to the South Caucasus.

Renewed fighting in and around Nagorno-Karabakh was not unexpected. But the scale of the ongoing clashes, Turkey’s more prominent role, and the potential for range of weapons, including UAVs, missiles, and elec- the conflict to spill over into other contested regions tronic warfare equipment. Once the fighting started have already raised the stakes considerably. For now, in Nagorno-Karabakh, Turkeyalso offered Azerbaijan Russia is calling on all sides to de-escalate, seemingly strong political support. Erdogan declared that Turkey caught off-guard by the extent of the fighting and Turwould “remain by the side of our friend and brother key’s role in it. Thanks in part to its recent success in Azerbaijan” and demanded that Armenia immediately building ties with Baku, Moscow remains reluctant to return its “occupied territory.” Turkey’s main opposi- take sides or intervene directly. Russia is the only outtion parties joined Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Devel- side power in a position to force the sides to return to opment Party in passing a resolution condemning Ar- the negotiating table. Turkey’s intervention threatens menian actions. Turkey has also reportedly dispatched Russia’s traditional mediator role, but Moscow still has Syrian mercenaries to Azerbaijan, and Armenia claimed considerable financial and political leverage to push for this week that a Turkish F-16 shot down one of its fight- a stop to the fighting. It should do so, even if it will ulers (a claim Turkey rejects). timately be up to the protagonists in Baku and Yerevan to step back from the brink.

Turkey’s deepening involvement in Nagorno-Karabakh is a dangerous game. Within the South Caucasus, strong The views expressed in this article are those of the auTurkish support could encourage Baku to take an un- thor and are not an official policy or position of the Nacompromising line and resist calls for a cease-fire that tional Defense University, the Department of Defense, maintains some version of the status quo ante. Turk- or the U.S. government. ish involvement could also transform the conflict into an existential one in the eyes of the Armenian public, This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

23

09/10/20

P

olitics

Don’t Put Belarus in the Middle

The West Needs to Balance the Interests of Moscow and Minsk

by Yauheni Preiherman and Thomas Graham

tors throughout western Europe and the United Statesto predict the early demise of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, often reviled as For the past two months, Belarus has seized head- “the last dictator in Europe.� But Russian political lines in the West. A rigged presidential election support and promises of security assistance have followed by mass protests prompted commenta- helped Lukashenko hold on to power. Instead of a

24

09/10/20

revolution, the situation has become a prolonged standoff.

As the unrest drags on, Western countries need to find a way to promote democratic progress in Belarus without provoking a counterproductive Russian response. A misstep on the part of the United States or others could transform the country into a zone of geopolitical confrontation. Such an outcome would harm Western interests, European security, and the people of Belarus.

To avoid such a scenario, the United States and the European Union must base their policies on a clear-eyed assessment of the protest movement’s weaknesses and Moscow’s strengths. They should seek a middle-ground solution that precipitates Lukashenko’s departure and acknowledges Russia’sclose ties to the country. At the same time, they should gradually normalize relations in order to slowly create better conditions for future democratic progress. Such a policy would recognize the Belarusian protesters’ anger at the status quo, prevent the country from becoming a zone of great-power contestation, and reduce the risk of a large-scale Russian intervention that would close the path to reform.

GROUND-LEVEL TRUTHS Protesters unfurl a banner in the colors of the former Belarus national flag as they call for the resignation of President Alexander Lukashenko in Minsk, Belarus, on Sunday, )Getty( .2020 ,16 .Aug

As the protest movement in Belarus gained momentum throughout the month of August, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that Lukashenko’s days were numbered. Those predictions were premature. As impressive as the demonstrations might be, the opposition lacks the strength to compel Lukashenko to step down or agree to new elections. His main rival, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, has fled to Lithuania. As a political novice (she entered the campaign only after the arrest of her husband, a declared candidate), she serves as a symbol of the protest but lacks the skills to lead it.

Tikhanovskaya has acknowledged the limitations of her role and established a Coordination Council, which was initially tasked with facilitating a peaceful transfer of power away from Lukashenko.

The government reacted immediately, however, proclaiming the council illegal and opening criminal cases against its members. Most of its leading

25

09/10/20

Given the vulnerability of Belarus’s opposition and Russia’s need to keep the country in its orbit, countries like France, Germany, and the United States will have to walk a political tightrope. members are now under arrest or have fled the country. As a result, the body has provided little in the way of leadership. Activists organize the enormous anti-Lukashenko demonstrations in Minsk and elsewhere on Sundays using the social media platform Telegram, and the council does not coordinate their activities. Meanwhile, the council has had difficulty expanding the grassroots opposition beyond its original base of mainly young, urban protesters; it has, for example, failed to convert support among workers at state-owned factories into a nationwide strike that could weaken a core Lukashenko constituency. Moreover, the council has already ratcheted down its demands: instead of calling for Lukashenko to step aside, it now speaks more vaguely about the need to “organize the process of overcoming the political crisis and ensure social cohesion.”

For his part, Lukashenko is weaker than ever before, but he has still managed to maintain popular support in rural areas and small towns and among older generations of Belarusians. The governing elite, including most of those in the security services, has also remained overwhelmingly loyal. The result is a stalemate with no resolution in sight.

RUSSIA’S STAKE Lukashenko appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin for security assistance when the protests reached their height. Putin was primed to respond: the Russian leader views the “color revolutions” that have overthrown Kremlin-friendly governments elsewhere in the region as Western assaults on Moscow’s sphere of influence. He has made clear that he will do whatever it takes

P

olitics

to ensure that Belarus, which Moscow views as a strategic buffer against its Western rivals, remains in Russia’s orbit. To underscore the point, Putin publicly received Lukashenko in Sochi, approved a $1.5 billion loan to ease Minsk’s debt burden, and announced that he had “set up a certain police reserve” that he could deploy if the situation in Belarus “gets out of control.” He has also made clear in public and in private conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron that Moscow will not tolerate any Western interference in Belarus.

Still, Moscow’s support for Lukashenko is far from unconditional. The Belarusian strongman has been a difficult partner, repeatedly thwarting Russian attempts to tighten economic and political ties. Just before the election, Lukashenko arrested more than 30 Russian mercenaries employed by a private military company close to the Kremlin on charges of planning a coup. (He changed his mind quickly and released them once the protests began). The Kremlin might not oppose Lukashenko’s eventual departure, given this mixed record-it could even facilitate it-as long as Belarus remains firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence and the transition does not appear to be the result of popular or Western pressure.

THE WEST’S CHOICES Given the vulnerability of Belarus’s opposition and Russia’s need to keep the country in its orbit,

A post-Lukashenko Belarus, with close ties to Moscow but an improved relationship with the West, remains a possible medium-term outcome of the current crisis.

countries like France, Germany, and the United States will have to walk a political tightrope. They need to pressure the Belarusian government to stop the violence and negotiate a peaceful end to the unrest, but at the same time they must avoid an open conflict with Moscow.

They can start by acknowledging the nature of the protests. The Belarusian opposition is invested in domestic issues, not geopolitics, and it does not want to become a pawn in anyone’s anti-Russian struggle. Indeed, the protesters understand that Moscow is economically and politically central to their country. Belarus depends on Russia as both a market for goods and a supplier of vital resources, such as energy. Neither the protests nor Western intervention will change that relationship.

Potential Western backers need to respect this dynamic and take care to avoid turning the country into a battleground. They can begin by making clear to everyone-including the Belarusian government and the opposition, as well as Moscow-that their absolute priority is to prevent any further vio-

26

09/10/20

Russian army tanks and armored personnel carriers take part in military exercises at the Prudboy range in Volgograd region, Southern Russia on September 24, 2020 during the “Caucasus-2020” military drills gathering China, Iran, Pakistan and Myanmar troops, along with ex-Soviet Armenia, Azerbaijan )and Belarus. (Getty

lence, no matter how the domestic political situation evolves.

Calling for a peaceful resolution of the crisis, however, will not be enough. The United Statesand the European Union should actively seek to facilitate such an outcome through patient, quiet, diplomatic engagement with Moscow, because the Kremlin still holds the key to Lukashenko’s fate. They should offer sanctions relief in return for a settlement that puts an end to human rights violations and advances political accountability. Doing so would position the West to play a larger economic role and help create an opening for democratic progress without inflaming Russian fears of a Western power grab.

the position under the current conditions would legitimize Lukashenko’s crackdown. Leaving the post empty, however, sends a far worse signal to Belarusian society-that the United States is interested in discussing the country’s issues only with Moscow. Washington should confirm an ambassador to Belarus as soon as possible, and the new appointee should balance official government engagement with active outreach to the opposition.

A post-Lukashenko Belarus, with close ties to Moscow but an improved relationship with the West, remains a possible medium-term outcome of the current crisis. It might not be the one many in the West had hoped for, but it is still a good alternative and perhaps the best option in the current But while Western countries should avoid climate. Well-crafted policy could make it a realistoking conflict, they must also engage Bela- ty. If the West tries to force an aggressive solution, rus directly, and not imagine that they can do however, the outcome could be disastrous, most of so merely through the Kremlin. When the cur- all for the brave people of Belarus. rent crisis broke out, the U.S. Senate was in the process of confirming a new ambassador to This article was originally published on ForeignAfBelarus. Some senators now argue that filling fairs.com.

27

09/10/20

P

olitics

The U.S. Intelligence Community Is Not Prepared for the China Threat A Fundamental Realignment Is Needed to Counter Beijing

by Adam Schiff We are witnessing the resurgence of authoritarianism across the globe, and it poses a growing challenge to the very idea of liberal democracy. China, with its expanding economic, military, and diplo-

matic might, is at the forefront of this neoauthoritarian challenge. Beijing seeks to build a world in which its ambitions are unchallenged and individual freedoms give way to the needs of the state. The United States must rise to meet this challenge-and that task begins with understanding China’s inten-

28

09/10/20

tions and capabilities.

The House Intelligence Committee has spent the last two years looking at whether our nation’s intelligence apparatus is properly focused, postured, and resourced to understand the many dimensions of the China threat and preparing to advise policymakers on how to respond. We conducted hundreds of hours of interviews, visited facilities operated by over a dozen intelligence agencies, and reviewed thousands of analytic assessments in order to produce a classified report with a public summary and recommendations.

What we found was unsettling. Our nation’s intelligence agencies are not ready-not by a long shot.

Absent a significant realignment in resources and organization, the United States will be ill prepared to compete with China on the global stage for decades to come.

AMBITIOUS REJUVENATION

The Chinese flag is carried by the military during the Opening Ceremony for the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics at the National Stadium on August ,8 2008 in Beijing, China.

(Getty)

China’s rise as a global power has come startlingly fast, and its ambitions have grown even more quickly. The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party believe that they must restore China to its rightful place as the “Middle Kingdom” by achieving what CCP leadership terms the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Chinese President Xi Jinping has inextricably linked this concept to the development of a “world-class” military capable of defending China’s core interests, the achievement of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the elimination of “lax and weak governance” within the CCP itself. In addition to the domestic aspects of its self-proclaimed rejuvenation, Beijing increasingly sees itself as a preeminent power that can dictate terms to its neighbors to achieve its global ambitions. To that end, Beijing has erected an elaborate system of domestic control to maintain power and control information as they do so. This model of technology-driven totalitarianism has also become a growing Chinese export, enabling other would-be autocrats to follow the Chinese example.

The disturbing degree to which the Chinese government has developed a model of domestic repression is most evident in the western region of Xinjiang, where the Uighur population lives in a vast panopticon of constant surveillance and little contact with

29

09/10/20

After 11/9, the United States and its intelligence agencies rapidly reoriented toward a counterterrorism mission to protect the homeland. Although those moves were both necessary and largely successful, our abilities and resources devoted to other priority missions-such as China-waned. the outside world. Not content with mere control, Beijing has also sought to destroy Uighur religion, culture, and society and has erected concentration camps that hold millions of Uighurs in the worst human rights abuses of the twenty-first century.

China itself views competition with the United States unfolding in ideological and zero-sum terms.

It has sought to modernize the People’s Liberation Army and develop doctrine for new domains, such as space and cyber, that would redefine existing conceptions of how a twenty-first century war would unfold, extending the battlefield to our political discourse, mobile devices, and the very infrastructure that modern digital communication and communities rely upon. In that vein, we have also seen China seek to distort the stark reality of the coronavirus pandemic, preventing the world from learning about early indicators and pushing disinformation to blame anyone but themselves for the start and rapid spread of the virus.

A NECESSARY REALIGNMENT For the United States to effectively anticipate and respond, we will need the expertise of our intelligence agencies. But as our review found, the intelligence community’s focus and expertise on China is lacking. After 9/11, the United States and its intelligence agencies rapidly reoriented toward a counterterrorism mission to protect the homeland. Although those moves were both necessary and largely successful, our abilities and resources

P

olitics

devoted to other priority missions-such as Chinawaned. In the interim, China has transformed itself into a nation potentially capable of supplanting the United States as the leading power in the world.

In tandem with this transformation, Beijing’s increasing control of the domestic information environment and opaque decision-making process has continued to vex U.S. leaders seeking to develop sound and impactful policy toward China.

Going forward, if we fail to accurately predict and characterize Beijing’s intent, we will continue to struggle to understand how and why the leadership of the CCP makes decisions and fail to respond effectively. The good news is that we still have time to change course.

First, our intelligence agencies need to significantly realign resources and personnel to meet the challenge that China poses, quickly and across almost every single agency. China cannot be viewed just through an Asia-specific lens but instead must be integrated throughout the intelligence enterprise and its functional missions. This is especially true when it comes to our ability to provide analysis and warnings on “soft” threats such as pandemics, climate change, and economic trends, which recent experience has shown can have immense consequences for national security. As the intelligence community prioritizes analytic questions related to China, it must focus on the areas of competition

Even as we contend with the threat from China, we must dramatically increase our own engagement with the rest of the world, including by championing democracy and human rights.

that will enable the United States to succeed.

Second, intelligence agencies must do a better job of adapting to the sheer amount of open-source data available to them about global threats and competitors and to quickly get the resulting intelligence to decision-makers. Given the increasing pace of global events, driven partly by social media and mobile communications, we need to quickly adapt and modernize. That means properly utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze data to find what we need to make decisions quickly. An external organization should be tasked with conducting a study on the intelligence community’s prosecution of the open-source intelligence mission and make formal recommendations to streamline and strengthen its governance and capabilities. Similarly, the intelligence community should prioritize transferring successful start-up initiatives to long-term sustainment at the earliest

30

09/10/20

General Joseph Dunford (L), chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Fang Fenghui shake hands after signing an agreement at the Bayi Building in Beijing on )Getty(.2017 ,15 August

one of the best lessons from our counterterrorism mission and embed real-time intelligence support on China within different agencies-especially those outside the Defense Department, such at the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, and science and health agencies, which are often on the frontlines of this new multidimensional struggle.

The intelligence community must also continue to prioritize the counterintelligence challenge that China poses. Beyond the known threat emanating from China’s intelligence services, there are a range of Chinese influence actors and operations, many of which are funded and organized by the CCP’s United Front Work Department. According to the Department of Defense’s 2019 China Military Power Report, Chinese influence efforts have targeted cultural institutions, state- and municipallevel government offices, media organizations, educational institutions, businesses, think tanks, and policy communities. The U.S. government must strengthen its ability to categorize, disrupt, and deter such Chinese influence operations occurring on U.S. soil.

possible date, protecting dedicated funding for future innovation whenever possible.

Third, we need to change how we view the threat from China. Beijing presents not only a military threat but also economic, technological, health, and counterintelligence threats. Addressing these dimensions of the challenge will require a significant realignment of the types of individuals and skill sets we recruit, retain, invest in, and grant security clearances to, including through hiring analysts with nontraditional backgrounds in technology and science. The intelligence community should expand its practice of hiring technical experts, such as trained health professionals, economists, and technologists, to serve throughout its analytic corps. It should also formalize and broaden programs designed to hire and mentor the next generation of China analysts. That is also why we should adopt

31

09/10/20

It has become all too clear that the United States cannot give up on global leadership, because if it does, China will gladly step into the breach with its own malign intentions. Even as we contend with the threat from China, we must dramatically increase our own engagement with the rest of the world, including by championing democracy and human rights.

Yet for all the talk in Washington about the need to be “tough on China,” there has been scant action within the U.S. intelligence community-because action, unlike talk, requires hard choices about funding and priorities. But these are not choices we should shrink from. We have to face them before it is too late to act, because unless our intelligence apparatus has its eyes squarely trained on Beijing’s malevolent activity around the world, it is not just our national security that will sufferso will our economy, health security, and technological edge.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

The Death and Life of Terrorist Networks How Alliances Help Militants Survive

by Christopher Blair, Erica Chenoweth, has recovered from a near-death experience. Its Michael C. Horowitz, Evan Perkoski, predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, also reconstituted itself after nearly being defeated in 8-2007. ISIS Philip B. K. Potter ISIS is quietly ÂŤrising from the ashesÂť in parts of Iraq and Syria, but this is not the first time that it

has demonstrated extraordinary resilience; about half of all terrorist organizations fail in their first year, but it has survived for the better part of two decades despite fighting against an international

32

09/10/20

coalition assembled to defeat it.

This resilience may seem surprising, but it should not. Over recent decades, militant groups with the kind of vast international network of affiliates, allies, and supporters that ISIS has assembled have proved difficult to defeat. Alliances have helped ISIS expand and gain influence in good times and have relieved pressure by deflecting attention toward affiliates in bad times. Without defeating this whole network, accordingly, it will be hard to fully finish off the core group.

The value of alliances in geopolitical competition between states has been frequently noted in the past few years. It turns out alliances are just as important to often-stateless militant groups.

The difference between a terrorist group with ideologically aligned allies and a terrorist group without them can mean the difference between survival and defeat-as the ongoing fight to destroy ISIS is making all too clear today.

BELIEVERS IN ARMS In an analysis of militant group behavior over the past 70 years, we compiled every known alliance between armed groups since 1950. Using an extensive array of open-source information, we identified the incidence, location, and content of cooperative relationships. Were groups sharing equipment and materiel or exchanging funds? Were they coordinating attacks? Or was cooperation merely rhetorical, involving pledges and other public statements but little in the way of physical exchange?

The resulting data-the most comprehensive account available of worldwide networks of terrorist, rebel, and insurgent organizations-reveal several important patterns. First, between 1950 and 2016, militant groups developed much broader networks than is commonly appreciated. We have identified nearly 15,000 instances of cooperation between 2,613 different armed organizations, undercutting the common belief that armed groups operate primarily in isolation. Second, these networks have become more extensive over time, increasing in number but also in geographic breadth. The number of active alliances grew steadily from the

33

09/10/20

The lesson of the durability of ISIS and other successful militant groups over the last 70 years is that states should not underestimate the power of a shared ideology, even under concerted military or law enforcement pressure. late 1960s through the early 1980s, going from just under 50 to nearly 175, corresponding with a wave of European decolonization and the rise of communist movements in Western Europe, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. After a brief lull in the late 1980s, alliances surged again until reaching a peak around 2010. Linkages among armed Islamist groups, many of them motivated by the presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, dominated this latter wave. Many involved the exchange of tangible goods, such as guns, explosives, and other equipment, and efforts to help armed groups smuggle resources into Afghanistan and Iraq to sustain their fight against coalition forces.

For militant groups, these alliances help ensure survival. Groups with strong, dense networks can lean upon allies when times are tough, whereas those in isolation must fend for themselves. But our data also reveal that not all alliances are created equal. Many are short-lived and quickly fall apart in the face of government repression.

Others, like those formed by ISIS, have proved to be much more resilient.

As ISIS grew in 2013, its alliance network expanded, increasing from only three in 2013 to more than 30 in 2016. Between 2013 and 2015, ISIS drew upon its sizable war chest (estimated at nearly 2.6$ billion at its apex) to send its allies weapons and other materiel to boost their capacities. Supporters in Europe and neighboring countries dispatched fighters and laundered or hid money. Affiliates in Asia sent fighters and shared profit windfalls. Allies around the globe

P

olitics

contributed weapons, technology, and information while conducting attacks that burnished the ISIS image and undercut perceptions that the organization was on the run. When battles with U.S.-led coalition forces intensified in 2015 and the group›s finances became strained and material cooperation grew more difficult, ISIS began to form new relationships based on rhetorical bonds and pledges of loyalty. This allowed the group to broaden its global footprint and retain its «brand» despite battlefield setbacks in Iraq and Syria.

What made these alliances so durable was their foundation in a shared extremist jihadi ideology.

A shared ideology and, particularly, a shared religion is critical for maintaining alliances when times are tough. Without it, alliances are more likely to buckle under the weight of military pressure as groups renege on their commitments and prioritize their immediate survival. Militant relationships based on a shared religious ideology enjoy several benefits. They offer access to a broader community of supporters and officials who can observe and enforce adherence to the relationship. A major concern with any alliance is a partner unilaterally reneging; religion can provide a built-in community of monitors, including imams, clerics, or priests, with the authority to incentivize cooperation and punish defection in relationships between organizations of the same faith. Both al Qaeda and ISIS have relied on prominent Salafi clerics to legitimize

Shared religious beliefs also increase levels of trust. Common goals and worldviews mean that groups are more likely to fulfill their commitments and support their partners, even when times are tough.

their causes and attract and retain partners. And ideological affinity means that if a group›s partners were to abandon the network, they could get a bad reputation within jihadi circles that would haunt them for years to come.

Shared religious beliefs also increase levels of trust. Common goals and worldviews mean that groups are more likely to fulfill their commitments and support their partners, even when times are tough. Consider the relationship between ISIS and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Egypt. Both groups were under significant counterinsurgent pressure (ISIS from U.S.-led coalition troops and ABM from Egyptian forces). The alliance would normally be hard to sustain under such circumstances, but top militant clerics in Egypt pushed ABM to pledge support for ISIS and remain committed. As a consequence, ABM obtained weapons, received propaganda support, and was able to bolster its ranks with foreign recruits, while ISIS gained a foothold in Egypt and credibility with Egyptian hard-liners.

34

09/10/20

serve a similar function, such as those that united many armed leftist groups during the Cold War. But nonreligious ideologies generally yield less durable relationships. In the face of government repression, relationships based on a shared religious ideology are 25 percent less likely to fall apart than those based on another shared ideology.

Religious ideologies provide particularly complete packages of community monitoring, authority structures, trust, and transnational networks.

ISIS has been particularly skillful in its use of religion to bolster its networks and thereby amplify its success and global reach. Although its quasi state in Iraq and Syria proved to be relatively short-lived, even momentarily fulfilling the long-standing jihadi objective of an Islamic caliphate in the heart of the Middle East allowed ISIS to wield religion like few others, which made its vast network particularly resilient in the face of considerable military might. The strength of such relationships also means that defeating a group such as ISIS is a global, rather than a local, challenge that demands political and social approaches that reduce the appeal of underlying ideologies.

IDEOLOGICAL APPEALS The benefits of sharing an ideology are not limited to ISIS or to Salafi-jihadi groups, nor even just to religion. Other ideologies often

35

09/10/20

Yet there are nonreligious ideologies that have offered similar benefits in the past-and could continue to do so in the future. For example, today›s growing networks of far-right militancy, bolstered by the «globalization» of far-right ideology, could prove challenging to defeat if they develop strong ideological ties. The Counter-Terrorism Committee of the UN Security Councilrecently issued a report on the «growing and increasingly transnational threat posed by extreme right-wing terrorism.» Authorities in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, and the United States have all issued guidance about the threat posed by far-right terrorism, and in April, the U.S.government listed a Russian white-supremacist group as a «Specially Designated Global Terrorist» organization»-the first time that a white supremacist organization has been so designated, allowing the Treasury Department›s Office of Foreign Assets Control to block financial transactions and enact travel bans against the group.

The lesson of the durability of ISIS and other successful militant groups over the last 70 years is that states should not underestimate the power of a shared ideology, even under concerted military or law enforcement pressure. Containing militant networks means investing considerable resources into discrediting and diminishing the appeal of the underlying ideology-even before the networks become a serious threat. When shared militant ideologies are allowed to flourish and grow unchecked, the groups that espouse them become much harder to defeat once governments do decide to crack down.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

Iran Faces its Third Deadly Wave The Regime is Sacrificing Iranian lives to Stay in Power

by Elie Fawaz The Covid-19 pandemic is taking a dangerous turn in Iran amid a total denial from the Authorities. Dr. A who lives in Teheran has worked for 30 years in the emergency department of public and private hospitals told Majalla that Iran is witnessing a third deadly wave.

The first wave of Covid-19 to hit Iran started in

the religious city of Qom brought by some Chinese clerics, recruited by the Iranian regime.

By then the regime needed to keep the spread of the coronavirus undisclosed for many reasons, the first was to parade the security forces on the anniversary of the Iranian revolution as a show of force against the protesters that were uprising in the major cities of the country, the second was to have the people vote in numbers in the upcoming parliamentary election.

36

09/10/20

When the virus spread all over Iran rapidly due to the government’s mismanagement of the crisis and its disregard for Iranian lives, the regime needed to hide the real figure of dead and thus lie more. It went on arresting and imprisoning people that published the true figure of death including from the medical stuff for fear of yet another uprising and public protests.

The administration of President Hassan Rouhani set up a “national headquarters for fighting the coronavirus” in February but failed to impose organized quarantine measures, for fear of economic fallouts. Religious figures and some government officials as well rejected the idea of closing religious sites that attract sizable crowds of people.

This led to what Dr. A call the third wave, that he describes as extremely virulent. The death toll in the third wave has surpassed 10 percent among those hospitalized Dr. A confirms. “The lack of basic health facilities and medicines due to the incompetence of those in power is the main reason for this mass killing of Iranian people”.

A Pakistani journalist wearing a protective facemask uses his mobile phone outside the Aga Khan University Hospital where a patient of the COVID19- novel coronavirus has been admitted in Karachi on February 2020 ,26.

(Getty)

The supreme leader has allocated 1 billion dollars to the Ministry of Health but less than $ 400 million were presumably spent in order to assist the health sector serve the people affected by the virus due to systematic theft, embezzlement and corruption. A statement issued by the Iranian Nursing Organization requested the payment of arrears, especially to the nursing staff. 20,000 nurses out of 110,000 have been infected with coronavirus the statement indicated.

The clerical regime doesn’t want to spend it on saving people’s lives and welfare rather it seeks to fund its suppressive forces inside Iran and its terrorist proxy forces in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. their lives.

The political leadership and the media tend to accuse the US administration and the enemies of Islamic republic for the suffering of the Iranian people in order to cover their incompetence and theft and avoid another uprising and protest movement.

It will get worse than anywhere else in the next few months. Worse than what the world witnessed in Italy, Spain and England, Dr. A says.

According to some reliable studies, more than 50% of the population of Iran will get infected by the virus and more than 400,000 people will need to be hospitalized in the coming months.

No new hospitals have been installed says Dr. A. and we might reach 980 deaths daily soon. “ICU or CCU units have increased to ten thousand in Iran, but we need at least 100,000 units”.

The new coronavirus is seen by this regime as a blessing and an opportunity that will keep people from demonstration in the streets since analyst and economists believe that if the value The regime does have money to face the crisis of dollar exceeds thirty thousand tomans (it is with Khamenei and IRGC controlling multi- currently 28000) urban riots of working and billion-dollar cartels says Dr. A, but the clerical middle class will begin. Today the Islamic reregime doesn’t want to spend it on saving peo- public knows its going through worst finanple’s lives and welfare rather it seeks to fund cial, economic and social conditions since the its suppressive forces inside Iran and its terror- revolution. ist proxy forces in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.

But this regime is ready to sacrifice Iranian lives and make use of the pandemic to stay in Therefore, the people are paying the price by power. And this should come as no surprise.

37

09/10/20

P

olitics

'

Modi s Himalayan Dilemma A Border Clash With China Leaves India Few Good Options

by Sushant Singh For nearly five months now, around 100,000 Indian and Chinese soldiers have been engaged in a precarious standoff high in the Himalayas. Negotiations between military commanders and diplomats have so far prevented border clashes from escalating into a wider military conflict between the world›s two most populous countries. But after fighting in June led to the first combat fatalities on the frontier in 45 years, both sides rushed additional troops to the frontier

and tensions are still running high. China has rapidly consolidated territorial gains along the border to take the upper hand in negotiations, leaving Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi›s government with some tough choices to make in the middle of a raging pandemic and as the Indian economy craters.

The border crisis has snowballed into an intractable political, diplomatic, and economic challenge for Modi. He can›t accept Beijing›s aggression in the region without denting his own nationalist strongman

38

09/10/20

credentials, but he can›t stand up to China militarily without making enormous investments in his military-investments that are impossible in the midst of an economic crisis. Modi could enlist external friends and allies, both in the region and globally, to put pressure on China, but that risks deviating from India›s long-standing commitment to «strategic autonomy»-that is, a foreign policy of self-reliance that doesn›t forge close alliances with great powers.

And courting allies may be a little harder for India after Modi›s domestic policies, which have often channeled the Hindu nationalist politics of his political base, have reduced India›s attractiveness as a liberal, secular democracy. Modi, the most powerful ruler India has had in decades, now faces a moment of reckoning.

A ONE-SIDED CONTEST

An Indian Air Force Hercules military transport plane prepares to land at an airbase in Leh, the joint capital of the union territory of Ladakh bordering China, on September 2020 ,8.

(Getty)

Beijing and New Delhi have had a tumultuous relationship for the past seven decades. The lowest point was a border war in 1962 in which China humiliated India, seizing vast tracts of land in the disputed territory of Ladakh. Relations between the two Asian powers slowly improved after the end of the Cold War. Both countries sought deeper economic ties, greater diplomatic engagement, and occasional cooperation at multilateral forums. They managed tensions along their disputed border through a series of agreements that laid out protocols and tried to suppress the likelihood of a military escalation.

This model worked for a quarter of a century but was fraying at the edges by 2017, when Indian and Chinese soldiers confronted each other for 73 days at Doklam on the Bhutanborder.

The Doklam crisis was a warning sign that officials in New Delhi ignored. Instead of recognizing that China was acting more aggressively, India reverted to the calculated balancing act that had facilitated India›s rise as an emerging power in the new millennium.

Modi tried to build stronger personal ties with China over two informal summits with Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2018 and 2019, the two most wellpublicized meetings among the 18 they have had so far.

This effort was in keeping with India›s commitment to strategic autonomy-a legacy of the foreign policy of nonalignment championed by India›s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Even though Modi has flirted with the idea of joining Australia, Japan, and the United States in the so-called Quad, he has never fully committed to entering any anti-China grouping.

Much to the West›s chagrin, New Delhihas been reluctant to identify Beijing as an adversary. Indian

39

09/10/20

He can›t accept Beijing›s aggression in the region without denting his own nationalist strongman credentials, but he can›t stand up to China militarily without making enormous investments in his militaryinvestments that are impossible in the midst of an economic crisis. officials seem to have believed in the platitude that the two Asian giants would not let their differences become disputes.

Beijing clearly had other ideas. Tensions rose after Modi›s government changed the constitutional status of Kashmir in August 2019, bringing disputed areas bordering China directly under New Delhi›s control.

China objected strongly to the move in public statements, with Modi rushing his foreign minister to Beijing to ease tensions. Things seemed to have settled until May, when the People›s Liberation Army diverted soldiers from an annual training exercise in Tibettoward and across multiple points of the disputed Sino-Indian border in Ladakh. This caught India by surprise and it sent additional troops to Ladakh in the following weeks, but by then the PLA had reportedly grabbed over 1,000 square kilometers of territory in the border areas. Beijing has refused to withdraw from these new positions despite numerous rounds of talks over the past 21 weeks.

Like Modi in India, Xi is the most powerful Chinese leader in decades. He has finally abandoned Deng Xiaoping›s much-cited dictum «Hide your strength, bide your time.» Beijing has good reasons to be more assertive now, having grown economically and militarily and emerged as an undisputed global power. It now wishes to demonstrate that strength.

Beijing and New Delhi were in the same league three decades ago, but China has since moved far ahead, pitching itself directly against the United States.

It riles New Delhi that China doesn›t seem to take India all that seriously. As Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar noted in his recent book,

P

olitics

The Indian Way, «Unlike on the rest of world, India›s rise has been partly lost on a China that has been growing five times faster.»

The difference between the two Asian neighbors is real and substantive. The Chinese economy is five times the size of the Indian economy, while its military spending is four times that of India›s.

Moreover, India›s economic growth rate, which had already started to slow under Modi›s government, has posted the worst performance among big economies during the COVID19- pandemic. Unemployment is at an all-time high, industrial production has declined, and investment has dried up. Once touted as possibly the fastest-growing economy in the world, India under Modi is staring at its worst economic crisis in many decades. New Delhi is in no position to build the military strength it desperately needs not only to fend off China but to handle a potential war on two fronts against both China and longtime rival Pakistan.

India has to find a way to deal with a demonstratively assertive China despite this growing asymmetry of economic and military power. There are not many arrows in Modi›s quiver, a weakness reflected in his government›s stance during the ongoing border crisis. Modi is quick to inveigh against Pakistan, but he has been very careful in his choice of words about China, rarely discussing in public Beijing›s aggressive moves on the border. Modi likes to pose as a Hindu nationalist strongman and a bold leader, but he realizes that India is in no position to risk a military conflict with China. In a joint press statement issued on September 22 after the recent meeting of senior military commanders, the two sides agreed to «stop sending more troops to the frontline» and «avoid taking any actions that may complicate the situation.»

But by agreeing to «refrain from unilaterally changing the situation on the ground,» Modi›s government conceded that it was not willing to force the Chinese to withdraw from recently grabbed territory or to stop the PLA from building new watchtowers and other outposts along the border. India intends to avoid a military escalation, which in all likelihood means that it will accept the new Chinese-established status quo on the border.

India›s most public retaliatory move against Beijing has been to ban a few dozen Chinese apps, including the popular video-sharing app TikTok. Such a

response is not enough to satisfy the millions of Indians who believe Modi is an all-conquering, allpowerful leader-an image peddled by the jingoistic Indian media. But Modi will not want to up the ante and try to retake lost land, risking a war he has little chance of winning. India has no immediate answers to China›s aggression, although the longterm prescriptions are well-known. Jaishankar speaks of «simultaneously strengthening capacities internally, assessing the external landscape, and seeking understandings with China,» but at least two of those general recommendations will deliver little in the near term: India is not in a position to meaningfully ramp up investment in its military during the current economic crisis, and Modi cannot seek an understanding with China without making politically unviable concessions such as formally giving up territory and enduring public humiliation.

Even though large sections of Indian media march to Modi›s tune, their panegyrical coverage of the military in the last two decades-granting the troops an exalted status and hailing every soldier›s death as a sacrifice for the nation-could complicate matters for the government. Modi›s attempt to project normalcy on the border was upended in the middle of June after the media fixated on how 20 Indian soldiers had lost their lives and ten were taken captive in clashes with

40

09/10/20

Indian Army move towards Ladakh at Gagangeer area of Ganderbal district as the standoff escilates on 07 September 2020.

(Getty)

India›s most public retaliatory move against Beijing has been to ban a few dozen Chinese apps, including the popular videosharing app TikTok. Such a response is not enough to satisfy the millions of Indians who believe Modi is an all-conquering, allpowerful leader-an image peddled by the jingoistic Indian media.

Chinese soldiers in Ladakh.

BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND ALLIANCE The «external landscape,» however, seems favorably disposed toward India as many major countries look to New Delhi to help hedge against an assertive China.

India has been hesitant to take advantage of these overtures, hoping to both compete and cooperate with China and retain strategic autonomy. But things are changing fast. In September, India and Japan sealed a logistics agreement to provide their militaries with access to each other›s bases for supplies and services.

The Indian and Japanese foreign ministers, along with their American and Australian counterparts, are expected to meet in Tokyo in early October as part of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. Beijing is unhappy about the Quad possibly emerging as an Asian version of NATO. Modi will have to decide whether he wants to enter India into a possibly militarized Quad grouping-in the vein of NATOor if he only has the stomach for a more benign multilateral formation that emphasizes cooperation, but not military partnership, against China.

India has refrained from becoming a formal U.S. ally even though it wants greater support from

41

09/10/20

Washington, especially in light of its border crisis with China. New Delhi has historically benefited from bipartisan support in the United States, but that has been damaged in recent years as Modi publicly chose to support U.S. President Donald Trump-the two leaders have shared the stage at rapturous rallies in Houston and in Ahmedabad-and as Modi›s Hindu nationalist government has steered India away from its secular, liberal, and democratic traditions. The contours of a comprehensive Indian-U.S. partnership, and New Delhi›s commitment to it, will be clear only after the results of the U.S. presidential election in November; should the Democrats win, Modi will have to adapt to a different kind of U.S. foreign policy and potentially to more scrutiny of his government›s majoritarian domestic agenda.

It will be tough for Modi to safeguard India›s interests-including its strategic autonomy and its burgeoning trade ties with China-while acting as a bulwark against an aggressive China. He has been very guarded so far, but he will have to guide India in one direction or another, either toward greater contestation with China or toward a more submissive modus vivendi. The current crisis on the roof of the world has put Modi, who has made a political career out of projecting strength, in an unenviable position.

It has forced him to confront the consequences of his own strongman rhetoric and exposed the weak position in which his six years of rule have left India.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

No More War? Israel, Lebanon Agree to Negotiate Maritime Border If Both Countries Cooperate, the Negotiations Could Move the Two Historical Enemies Toward Peace Majalla - London As Lebanon quickly sinks ever deeper into its most severe economic crisis in its modern history, the announcement that it had agreed to a framework for negotiations with Israel over its disputed maritime border — their first direct talks in 30 years — came as something of a surprise. The talks are expected to be held after the Jewish Sukkot holiday, which ends on October 9, and will be held in Naqoura in southern Lebanon under the United Nations flag. Israel and Lebanon are still in a formal state of war and therefore have no diplomatic relations, and the two nations have never demarcated a maritime border. This became truly important when natural gas was discovered offshore in the Mediterranean Sea in 2009. Each claim about 330 square miles of the Mediterranean Sea on the edge of three Lebanese offshore

energy blocks as within their own exclusive economic zones and both countries hope to explore and develop new gas fields in the area. Now, development of that resource could either spark new conflicts between the two countries or create new foundations of prosperity for both, and may be the catalyst that moves the two historical enemies toward peace. But this depends on their willingness to be cooperative.

In 2009, American company Noble Energy discovered the Tamar field off the coast of Israel, with proven and potential natural gas reserves of 320 billion cubic meters (bcm). Shortly after, the Leviathan field was discovered and found to hold about 600 bcm of reserves The Leviathan natural falls in 860 square kilometers of disputed oceanic territory between Israel and Lebanon, where there may well be additional reserves yet to be discovered.

Already Israel, Cyprus, and Greece have reached an agreement

42

09/10/20

A picture shows the area of Naqura, south of the Lebanese city of Tyre, which is controlled by the United Nations peacekeeping force (UNIFIL), on the border with Israel, on October 2020 ,2.

(Getty)

to develop the gas and lay a pipeline to transport it to Europe.

However, Israel’s Block 72 of the gas field lies very close to Lebanon’s Block 9.

A year after the gas discovery, Lebanon submitted its unilateral border to the UN. The southernmost point of its unilateral submission to the United Nations, was 17km south of the line included in the unratified Cypriot-Lebanese agreement.

Shortly after Lebanon’s unilateral border submission, in 2011, Israel and Cyprus reached an agreement for their maritime border, also conflicting with the unratified bilateral agreement between Cyprus and Lebanon. Also, in July 2011, Israel submitted to the UN its own unilateral maritime coordinates, bordering Lebanon. Since then, developments toward negotiating have been minimal at best until this past year, when rumours spread of talks taking place.

Israel’s energy picture changed after the discovery of Tamar field. With the finding, Israel had enough of a surplus to ensure domestic energy needs, allowing it to utilise its own natural gas rather than depend on imports from Egypt. The opportunity for self-sufficiency and for a better position vis-à-vis regional and international actors became increasingly attractive. The Leviathan field falls partially within the area contested with Lebanon, and, until an agreement is reached, Israel will face security threats

by Hezbollah as well as commercial complications arising from the risk involved for customers in purchasing gas from contested sources. Beirut is hoping that oil and natural gas discoveries in its territorial waters will help improve its economic prospects – and the reduction in political risks – which would lower the cost of credit and make it cheaper to repay its massive debt. Nabih Berri, the parliament speaker, said the gas discoveries on the Israeli side of the Mediterranean “prove that there are reserves and God willing this will help us pay our debt.” Lebanon has one of the highest debt ratios in the world standing at about %170 of its GDP. A natural gas deal would perhaps alleviate some of the pressure from the population to address economic concerns of the private and public sector, and could provide the necessary boost to the government to ease tensions. Eventually, some of the gas produced could even be exported, providing the Lebanese government with new revenues which, if properly managed and invested, could help fight poverty, improve education, infrastructure, and spark a historic socioeconomic rebirth.

Venturing into the natural gas industry will could also provide the Lebanese with a number of additional benefits: partnering with other international companies, strengthening bilateral relations, deepening participation in the global market, and increasing governmental legitimacy.

International border disputes are very common, and in the normal course of events rarely draw any attention, when the two countries are sworn enemies, this complicates things.

There have been two wars between Israel and Lebanon since Israel was established in 1948 following the Second World War. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 during the latter’s 1990-1975 civil war to fight Palestinian militants who launched attacks across the border. It occupied a strip of territory in southern

43

09/10/20

By agreeing to indirect negotiations, Hezbollah implicitly acknowledged that a compromise could be reached when it had argued that Lebanon’s rights to its offshore gas were inviolable.

Lebanon until 2000. In 2006, Israel waged a month-long war with Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group and Iran’s most powerful regional proxy.

And when one of the countries in dispute doesn’t acknowledge the other’s existence, this complicates things further as the two countries then cannot negotiate directly.

Years of failed initiatives by the United States and United Nations to mediate a peaceful resolution to the maritime dispute.

While the initiatives were unsuccessful in yielding the desired result of splitting the territory between both countries, they were successful in stalling Israel’s unilateral annexation of the area.

Realistically, only the U.S. is capable of making Lebanon and Israel reach a deal on the border dispute, and it would come as a blow to Iran and Hezbollah to not be able to stop it.

While the agreed framework for talks strictly concerns maritime issues and not the disputed land border — according to the top US diplomat for the Middle East, David Schenker — any step toward resolving borders makes Hezbollah less relevant, Khashan said.

«If a political settlement is reached, then Hezbollah would no longer be able to talk about resisting Israeli occupation,» Khashan said. «I think that›s the ultimate American objective — to disarm Hezbollah.»

This also presents an opportunity for Israel, as well as the Lebanese people.

“Having just made peace with the United Arab Emirates, in which Israel agreed (at least temporarily) not to annex parts of the West Bank and the UAE agreed to formally recognize Israel as a sovereign country, Israel now has a carrot to offer Lebanon in return for real peace and a dismantling of Hezbollah’s military machine,” Daniel Markind wrote in Forbes. “Joint development of the natural gas fields – or at the very least, recognizing each other’s right to do so – can help both countries and bring tangible benefit to the average Lebanese civilian,” he added.

Iran-backed Hezbollah, via its Shia ally, the Amal Movement, has long determined Lebanon’s position and remained steadfast in their demands. But after the Beirut explosions and nationwide rage against the ruling elite, Lebanon’s president and parliament speaker were quick to publicize their willingness to reach an agreement on the maritime border. By agreeing to indirect negotiations, Hezbollah implicitly acknowledged that a compromise could be reached when it had argued that Lebanon’s rights to its offshore gas were inviolable.

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1821- October- 09/10/2020

Joe Biden: The Long Arc of his Political Career www.majalla.com

H

ealth

5 Tips to Help You Stay Healthy this Winter

Even in an Unusual Year, Tried-and-True Strategies are Still the Best Way to Prevent Illness Harvard Health Staying healthy is likely at the top of your list almost every winter. But this year, in the midst of a pandemic, it may be even more of a concern than usual. You might wonder: should you be taking special supplements to boost your immune system, or investing

in cleaning devices to zap germs?

While the viral threats may be different from usual this year, the truth is that you should still be using many of the same strategies that you use in a typical year, says Michael Starnbach, a professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School. Below are five of his top tips that can help you keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

46

09/10/20

1. Clean your hands. Practicing good hand hygiene isn’t fancy or novel, but it works, says Starnbach. Washing with simple soap and water, and using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer when soap and water aren’t available, can help keep you from transporting germs from an infected surface to your eyes, nose, or mouth.

Also, be sure to follow local and state recommendations, which may include additional strategies such as wearing a mask and avoiding large gatherings, particularly indoors.

2. Eat healthy and exercise. Prime your immune system to effectively fight disease by keeping your body healthy. Follow a nutrient-rich diet that includes lots of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Also, exercise regularly, and get enough sleep.

“Being in good health helps us to resist infectious diseases,” says Starnbach.

3. Don’t skip doctor visits. Some people may fear getting exposed to illness, so they decide to avoid routine screenings and doctor’s appointments. But they may be putting themselves at higher risk by doing so, says Starnbach.

“Doctors’ offices are now equipped for routine visits in a coordinated and safe manner,” he says. Whether you show up in person or visit via video, it’s important to check in periodically with your doctor. Screenings are important for maintaining overall health and catching potential problems early, when they are most treatable.

4. Get vaccinated. Vaccinations aren’t only for kids; they’re a proven means of boosting your immune system to protect against certain viruses and other infectious agents. Although COVID-19 has taken center stage recently, don’t forget about traditional threats, such as the flu. Getting your annual flu shot is essential this year. Adults should also make certain that they are up to date on their tetanus shot, which should be given every 10 years, and consider getting the newer shingles vaccine, called Shingrix, which is recommended to everyone over age 50. It’s designed to prevent the virus that causes chickenpox (which remains in the body even after the infection has cleared) from reactivating and causing the painful shingles rash and other symptoms.

Adults over age 65 may also want to consider the pneumococcal vaccine to protect against a type of pneumonia unrelated to COVID-19. And stay tuned for news about a vaccine that could protect against COVID-19, which Starnbach says he hopes may become available in the not-so-distant future.

5. Be skeptical. A host of products on the market claim to protect you from germs -- “self-cleaning” surfaces, ultraviolet (UV) lights, and even substances you’re supposed to ingest, says Starnbach. Many of these items have some scientific basis, but it’s often a big leap from that basic science to the final product, he says. For example, one type of “self-cleaning” surface claims to use crystals to kill germs. While those crystals might indeed kill germs in a laboratory, it’s not at all clear that they work the same way to kill germs in a real-life setting, says Starnbach. So, there is much room for skepticism.

47

09/10/20

Ultimately, the best way to keep your environment germ-free is to wipe surfaces clean and then disinfect to deactivate any virus. You don’t need any special devices, just a rag and some generic cleaning products.

The same is true for UV lights. UV light at certain wavelengths definitely has the ability to kill bacteria and viruses; however, those specific wavelengths are also dangerous to human eyes and skin. Plus, in order to work, the light has to come into contact with the virus. Most viruses you pick up in the environment are contained in droplets of mucus, he says. UV light typically can’t penetrate the mucus, which means it can’t deactivate the virus.

Even something as simple as dirt can cast shadows that keep the light from reaching its target. Fogging devices run into the same problem. They can really disinfect only if the surface is cleaned first.

Ultimately, the best way to keep your environment germ-free is to wipe surfaces clean and then disinfect to deactivate any virus.

You don’t need any special devices, just a rag and some generic cleaning products.

Po

rt

ra

it

Joe Biden: The Long Arc of his Political Career Majalla - London Long before reaching one of the highest political offices in the nation, Biden — born on November 20, 1942 — grew up in the blue-collar city of Scranton in northeast Pennsylvania. His father, Joseph Biden Sr., worked cleaning furnaces and as a used car salesman. His mother was Catherine Eugenia “Jean” Finnegan.

Biden, who was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle county, Delaware, received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Delaware in 1965 and a law degree from Syracuse University in New York in 1968. During this time he married (1966) Neilia Hunter, and the couple later had three children.

After graduating from law school in 1968, Biden moved to Wilmington, Delaware, to begin practicing at a law firm. He also became an active member of the Democratic Party, and in 1970 he was elected to the New Castle County Council. While serving as councilman, in 1971, Biden started his own law firm.

In 1972, the Delaware Democratic Party encouraged a 29-year-old Biden to run against the popular Republican incumbent J. Caleb Boggs for the United States Senate. Although few thought he stood any chance, Biden ran a tireless campaign organized mostly by family mem-bers. That November, in a tight race with a large turnout, Biden won an upset victory to be-come the fifth-youngest U.S. senator elected in the nation’s history.

Shortly after he won his first Senate race,

Biden’s life was stuck by personal tragedy when he lost his first wife, Neilia, and baby daughter, Naomi, in a car accident. He famously took the oath of office for his first Senate term from the hospital room of his toddler sons Beau and Hunter, who both survived the accident.

From 1973 to 2009, Biden served a distinguished Senate career. During his time in the Senate, he focused on foreign relations, criminal justice, and drug policy and won respect as one of the body’s leading foreign policy experts, serving as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions for several years.

In 1987, having established himself as one of Washington’s most prominent Democratic law-makers, Biden decided to run for the U.S. presidency. He dropped out of the Democratic pri-mary, however, after reports surfaced that he had plagiarised part of a speech from British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without appropriate attribution.

Biden had been suffering severe headaches during the campaign, and shortly after he dropped out in 1988, doctors discovered that he had two life-threatening brain aneurysms.

Complica-tions from the ensuing brain surgery led to blood clots in his lungs, which, in turn, caused him to undergo another surgery.

In 2007, 20 years after his first unsuccessful presidential bid, Biden once again decided to run for the U.S. presidency but his campaign never gained momentum, and he withdrew from the race after placing fifth in the Iowa Democratic caucus in January of that year.

46

09/10/20

Several months later, though, Obama—having secured the Democratic nomination after a hard-fought campaign against Clinton—selected Biden as his running mate.

While Biden mostly served in the role of behind-the-scenes adviser to the president, he took particularly active roles in formulating federal policies relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama defeated Romney in the 2012 election, earning a second term as president and Biden another term as vice president.

On May 30, 2015, Biden suffered another personal loss when his son Beau died of brain can-cer at the age of 46. The younger Biden was seen as a rising star of US politics and had intend-ed to run for Delaware state governor in 2016. The elder Biden has credited Beau with encour-aging him to run again, and has used both tragedies on the trail to explain why healthcare - one of his signature policy goals is “personal” to him. Biden garnered considerable goodwill fol-lowing Beau’s death.

In January, 2017, President Obama presented Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in a surprise ceremony at the White House.

On April 25, 2019, Biden delivered the expected news that he was running for president in 2020. On August 11, 2020, Biden announced Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate. Later that month, Biden officially became the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee.