9, May 2020
US withdraws support for UN Security Council global ceasefire resolution 0
The United States on Friday stunned other members of the UN Security Council by preventing a vote on a resolution for a ceasefire in various conflicts around the world to help troubled nations better fight the coronavirus pandemic, diplomats said.
Washington’s reversal came a day after it agreed to the text, negotiators said under cover of anonymity.
“The United States cannot support the current draft,” the country’s delegation declared, without further detail, to the 14 other Security Council members, after nearly two months of difficult negotiation over the text.
The latest stalemate continues to leave the global peace and security body largely mute in the face of a once-in-a-century pandemic that has killed more than 270,000 people and raised further fears for the world’s most vulnerable.
When asked for an explanation of the US move, a State Department official told AFP that China had “repeatedly blocked compromises that would have allowed the Council to move forward.”
Diplomats told AFP that the language used in the draft to describe the World Health Organization was behind the US move to prevent the vote.
But other sources said Washington wanted the Council to return to an initial draft of the resolution which highlighted the need for “transparency” in global cooperation in tackling the pandemic.
“In our view, the Council should either proceed with a resolution limited to support for a ceasefire, or a broadened resolution that fully addresses the need for renewed member state commitment to transparency and accountability in the context of COVID-19,” the State Department official said.
Compromise had implicit WHO reference
US President Donald Trump has accused the WHO of downplaying the seriousness of the outbreak in China.
The procedure blocked by the United States would have allowed the sponsors of the resolution, France and Tunisia, to put it to a vote.
The latest version of the text — obtained by AFP — called for a cessation of hostilities in conflict zones and a 90-day “humanitarian pause” to allow governments to better address the pandemic among those most suffering.
It called on all nations to “enhance coordination” in the virus fight and highlighted the “urgent need to support all countries, as well as all relevant entities of the United Nations system, including specialized health agencies, and other relevant international, regional, and sub-regional organization.”
This wording, which implicitly refers to the WHO without explicitly mentioning it, was the compromise obtained from US and China on Thursday night, according to diplomats
‘Very bad news’
Washington had threatened to use its veto if there were any explicit reference to the WHO, while Beijing brandished its own veto if the global health body were not mentioned, before in the end accepting that it would not be.
Diplomats said the US had let go more than a week ago of its demand for mention of transparency in the French-Tunisian text. The “ball was in the Chinese camp” now, one of them said previously.
The US turnaround “is a very, very bad news for United Nations, the Security Council and multilateralism,” said one ambassador from a Security Council member.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been pushing for a cessation of hostilities around the world since March 23, urging all sides in conflict to lay down arms and allow war-torn nations to combat the coronavirus.
French Ambassador Nicolas de Riviere told AFP that he would like “of course to continue to try to reach an agreement, if there is room for that.”
His Tunisian counterpart Kais Kabtani said discussions are continuing “to convince the Americans.” He vowed that the procedure for going to a vote would be taken up again.
Ironically, the Security Council was also engaged Friday in a major videoconference organized by Estonia, which holds the body’s rotating presidency this month, on the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II.
More than 50 ministers from around the world participated, most of them issuing a “plea for multilateralism.”
Source: AFP
12, May 2020
Coronavirus pandemic politics costing lives in Brazil 0
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro keeps saying coronavirus fears are overblown. Other officials at the federal, state and local levels insist the danger is all too real.
Brazil is torn by a deep political divide over how to respond to the pandemic, and it is taking a heavy human toll.
On Saturday, even as the death toll in Brazil crossed the threshold of 10,000, Bolsonaro continued pressing to get the country back to work.
“The army of unemployed keeps growing,” he tweeted.
“Is chaos coming?” added the far-right leader, who has compared the virus to a “little flu” and condemned the “hysteria” surrounding it.
Some argue the “chaos” is already here — at least as far as the Brazilian government’s response goes.
Bolsonaro’s criticism of stay-at-home measures to fight the virus has put him at odds with state and local authorities across Brazil, not to mention his own former health minister.
The president sacked the latter, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, last month after a long series of public spats.
Meanwhile, Brazil has emerged as the epicenter of the pandemic in Latin America, with 11,519 deaths so far.
Experts say under-testing means the real figure is likely far higher, and that things stand to get a lot worse.
“We know from history that anytime there’s such a cacophony in a situation like this, such huge disagreement on public policy among leaders, tragedy ensues,” said Brazilian historian Sidney Chalhoub, a professor at Harvard University.
As an example, he cited the last major cholera outbreak in Europe, in the late 19th century, that killed more than 10,000 people in Hamburg, Germany.
“It was largely caused by divisions between the local political elite and dominant economic interests, which trumped public health concerns. And the result was an even bigger economic catastrophe,” he said.
– Polarizing disease –
Bolsonaro supporters have held a series of anti-confinement protests in recent weeks.
Sometimes the president himself has joined in, hitting the street, shaking hands and giving fiery speeches, all while refusing to wear a face mask.
The protests have included virulent attacks on Congress and the Supreme Court, which have moved to counter Bolsonaro’s anti-confinement measures.
At times, they have erupted into violence, including against journalists and even nurses.
But a recent poll by the Datafolha institute found that 67 percent of Brazilians believe stay-at-home measures are needed to contain the virus, even if they hurt the economy.
Even in his own camp, Bolsonaro’s support is far from universal.
Another poll found that while 56 percent of those who call themselves right-wing or center-right supported the president’s handling of the pandemic, 40 percent did not.
“The more closely related people are to someone who has been infected or died, the more they distance themselves from Bolsonaro,” said political scientist Carlos Pereira of the Getulio Vargas Foundation, who conducted the latter poll.
– ‘Anti-knowledge’ –
Like his US counterpart Donald Trump, whom he admires, Bolsonaro has touted the medication chloroquine as a wonder drug against COVID-19.
Scientists at Brazil’s leading public health research institute, Fiocruz, have stated that preliminary studies do not indicate chloroquine is an effective treatment for the disease.
Perceived to be attacking the president, they have received threats on social media in response.
“We’re talking about a far-right, anti-democratic government,” some of whose supporters have “fascist” tendencies, said sociologist Debora Messenberg, of the University of Brasilia.
“We can’t even talk about society being ‘polarized’ in the usual sense. It’s not a democratic polarization. Right now, the debate is between democracy and authoritarianism,” she said.
Brazil, like the United States, is facing the pandemic “with a government that is anti-knowledge,” said Chalhoub.
The Bolsonaro administration “is depicting this as a public health catastrophe versus an economic catastrophe. But that’s a harmful view that will drive us toward both,” he said.
Source: AFP