How the Coronavirus Will Help Russia and China Spy on America A prime time for cultivating new agents and for hacking. by Stratfor Worldview

I've seen a number of news reports discussing how the lockdowns and travel bans resulting from COVID-19 are hindering the ability of intelligence officers to do their jobs by preventing them from being able to conduct in-person source meets. The topic has also been discussed heavily in my social media feeds, and I've discussed the matter privately with friends who are former intelligence officers and have expressed similar concerns.

Certainly, the inability to conduct face-to-face source meets, and to make personal contact with recruitment targets to develop relationships with them, is a valid concern. I would like to suggest, however, that the economic crisis resulting from COVID-19 will also provide intelligence officers a golden opportunity to spot and recruit new agents. 

Aside from banning public meetings, closing bars and restaurants and severely curtailing travel, one of the other impacts of the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been widespread unemployment, with millions of people now out of work. And it is not just restaurant workers who are out of work: Among the unemployed are tens of thousands of workers in industries being targeted by hostile intelligence agencies, such as tech, aerospace, energy, and oil and gas. (Oil and gas companies are also being heavily impacted at the current time by the ongoing price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia.) For example, GE Aviation, a company repeatedly targeted by a Chinese intelligence campaign to steal engine manufacturing technology, announced it was laying off 10 percent of its workforce in March, and in April announced that it was laying off 50 percent of its engine manufacturing workforce.

Blue-collar workers are not the only ones impacted by the crisis: Executives, engineers and other white-collar employees are also being laid off or taking pay cuts. For example, at the Canadian defense firm CAE, the executive team has taken 50 percent pay cuts, vice presidents 30 percent, managers and directors 20 percent and all other remaining employees 10 percent. The impact on these firms and employees is arguably the greatest since the 2007-2009 global financial crisis — and this all comes during a time when I believe the corporate espionage threat is direr than ever.

COVID-19 has not dampened the appetite of the Chinese or Russian intelligence services (or of others, including competing companies) for corporate secrets. If anything, that appetite might increase during these hard economic times, because it remains cheaper and quicker to steal technology than it does to develop it independently. While it does make it more difficult to meet prospective agents face to face, lack of personal contact has not been a significant problem in past cases. In fact, as I have previously written, we have seen a number of cases in which LinkedIn was used to spot and then establish contact with espionage targets. LinkedIn allows intelligence officers to quickly search for employees at a particular company they are interested in targeting. In many cases, people helpfully list the programs or technologies they are working on, along with any security clearances they may have. Many times people will also indicate that they are out of work, or otherwise looking for a job on their LinkedIn profiles. This kind of information makes the spotting phase of the recruitment cycle very easy.

But as we have seen in past cases, such as the aforementioned GE Aviation case or the recruitment of former CIA case officer Kevin Mallory, LinkedIn was not just used for spotting. It was also used to establish contact and begin to develop a relationship with the targets. 

By offering ruse "work at home for pay" projects to unemployed people who have access to desired technologies, it is not hard to see how an intelligence officer could establish a solid relationship and at the same time set a "little hook" in a person. The intelligence officer merely needs to help the target financially during this crisis only to use that aid later as leverage after the person returns to work at his or her current firm, or finds employment at another firm working in a similar position with access to the desired technologies or information. This can all be done remotely over LinkedIn or other social media apps. It would not be difficult to make a wire transfer to an employee's bank account via a shell company, or perhaps to send him or her some cryptocurrency.

Many examples exist of Russian and Chinese intelligence officers being extremely patient in their intelligence efforts, often waiting years before their investment in an agent begins to pay off. Shelling out a little seed money and then waiting for this current economic crisis to end and for the employee to return to work would not be a long wait at all for them.

They may not even have to wait: While most companies presumably cut off the access laid-off employees have to sensitive or proprietary information residing on company-owned systems, how much of that information do they possess in their own devices and storage media, how much could they obtain from friends and colleagues still at the company, and how much resides in their own heads? In this vein, we saw Chinese intelligence recruit Mallory despite the fact he was a former CIA case officer and did not have the same access to agency intelligence he did as an active employee.

In terms of recruitment strategies, obviously money would be the No. 1 approach to use for a laid-off employee caught in a desperate financial situation due to a mortgage and other bills to pay, and perhaps with a child or two in college. A financial approach could be especially effective combined with a little hook approach as described above that could later be used for blackmail if they decided not to cooperate with future taskings. We saw the Chinese use this approach in the Mallory case, the GE Aviation case and in the recruitment of State Department employee Candace Claiborne. But if the employee is angry over being laid off, an intelligence officer who plays to the employee's ego, and perhaps thirst for revenge could also have a fairly easy time with recruitment. This holds true even if recruitment is done remotely over social media via chats and voice apps, similar to how we've seen terrorists overseas remotely recruit grassroots operatives living in the West.

The Security Paradox

Fred Burton and I noted the following in 2009 during the global financial crisis:

During times of financial hardship, companies often have to make cuts like the aforementioned layoffs. When companies plan cuts, they often focus on eliminating those corporate functions that do not appear to be contributing to the company's profitability. And one of the first functions cut during tough times often is corporate security. A security department typically has a pretty substantial budget (it costs a lot for all those guards, access control devices, cameras and alarms), and security is usually viewed as detracting from, rather than contributing to, the company's bottom line. The "fat" security budget is seen as an easy place to quickly reduce costs in an effort to balance the profit-and-loss statement.

This principle holds true today. One of the first places companies and organizations cut is security, which can serve to make them even more vulnerable to corporate espionage — especially if insider threat programs and other functions that protect against the theft of proprietary information are cut or curtailed just as the threat of corporate espionage involving laid-off employees is increasing. Also, even if the security programs are not cut or curtailed, the insider knowledge of security programs, policies and procedures that recently fired employees bring along with them could serve to make company facilities more vulnerable to black-bag jobs and other security threats.

As I noted a few weeks ago, because of the COVID-19 crisis, "the next few months are going to be extremely difficult for anyone attempting to conduct operations — especially transnationally. In fact, for many of us, this period may very well prove the most challenging of our careers." The corporate espionage threat arising from these layoffs is just one more factor adding weight to that Herculean challenge.

When an Economic Crisis Collides With an Unprecedented Espionage Threat is republished with the permission of Stratfor Worldview, a geopolitical intelligence and advisory firm.

Coronavirus Problems: Some Studies Report Over a Third of Patients Show Neurological Symptoms It appears that we have to add neurological symptoms to the list of general symptoms. by Jeremy Rossman

As case numbers of COVID-19 continue to rise around the world, we are starting to see an increasing number of reports of neurological symptoms. Some studies report that over a third of patients show neurological symptoms.

In the vast majority of cases, COVID-19 is a respiratory infection that causes fever, aches, tiredness, sore throat, cough and, in more severe cases, shortness of breath and respiratory distress. Yet we now understand that COVID-19 can also infect cells outside of the respiratory tract and cause a wide range of symptoms from gastrointestinal disease (diarrhoea and nausea) to heart damage and blood clotting disorders. It appears that we have to add neurological symptoms to this list, too.

Several recent studies have identified the presence of neurological symptoms in COVID-19 cases. Some of these studies are case reports where symptoms are observed in individuals. Several reports have described COVID-19 patients suffering from Guillain–Barré syndrome. Guillain–Barré syndrome is a neurological disorder where the immune system responds to an infection and ends up mistakenly attacking nerve cells, resulting in muscle weakness and eventually paralysis.

Other cases studies have described severe COVID-19 encephalitis (brain inflammation and swelling) and stroke in healthy young people with otherwise mild COVID-19 symptoms.

Larger studies from China and France have also investigated the prevalence of neurological disorders in COVID-19 patients. These studies have shown that 36% of patients have neurological symptoms. Many of these symptoms were mild and include things like headache or dizziness that could be caused by a robust immune response. Other more specific and severe symptoms were also seen and include loss of smell or taste, muscle weakness, stroke, seizure and hallucinations.

These symptoms are seen more often in severe cases, with estimates ranging from 46% to 84% of severe cases showing neurological symptoms. Changes in consciousness, such as disorientation, inattention and movement disorders, were also seen in severe cases and found to persist after recovery.

Crossing the blood-brain barrier

SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, may cause neurological disorders by directly infecting the brain or as a result of the strong activation of the immune system.

Recent studies have found the novel coronavirus in the brains of fatal cases of COVID-19. It has also been suggested that infection of olfactory neurons in the nose may enable the virus to spread from the respiratory tract to the brain.

Cells in the human brain express the ACE2 protein on their surface. ACE2 is a protein involved in blood pressure regulation and is the receptor the virus uses to enter and infect cells. ACE2 is also found on endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Infection of endothelial cells may allow the virus to pass from the respiratory tract to the blood and then across the blood-brain barrier into the brain. Once in the brain, replication of the virus may cause neurological disorders.

SARS-CoV-2 infection also results in a very strong response by the immune system. This immune response may directly cause neurological disorders in the form of Guillain–Barré syndrome. But brain inflammation might also indirectly cause neurological damage, such as through brain swelling. And it’s associated with – though doesn’t necessarily cause – neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Not unique, but still worrying

SARS-CoV-2 is not unique in being a respiratory virus that can also infect the brain. Influenza, measles and respiratory syncytial viruses can all infect the brain or central nervous system and cause neurological disease.

Other coronaviruses have also been found to infect the brain and cause neurological disorders. The related seasonal coronavirus, HCoV-OC43, typically causes very mild respiratory symptoms but can also cause encephalitis in humans. Similarly, the coronavirus that causes Mers and the 2003 Sars virus can cause severe neurological disorders.

Respiratory viruses getting into the brain is thankfully a rare occurrence. But with millions of COVID-19 infections worldwide, there is the risk of significant neurological disease, especially in severe cases.

It is important to be aware of the possibility of neurological manifestations of COVID-19, both during acute illness as well as the possibility of long-term effects. This also highlights the continued importance of preventing viral transmission and identifying those who are, and have been, infected.

Coronavirus Lockdown Is An Experiment In the Future Of Cities What in essence, is a city for? Is it to pursue growth, attract inward investment and compete against global rivals? Or is it to maximise quality of life for all, build local resilience and sustainability? by Paul Chatterton

A pause has been forced on urban life. Quiet roads, empty skies, deserted high streets and parks, closed cinemas, cafés and museums – a break in the spending and work frenzy so familiar to us all. The reality of lockdown is making ghost towns of the places we once knew. Everything we know about our urban world has come to a shuddering halt. For now. 

The lockdown will, at some point, end. Urban life will begin to hum again to the familiar rhythms of work, leisure and shopping. This will be a huge relief for us all. Yet our towns and cities will never be the same. Indeed, things might get worse before they get better.

But it’s also the case that other crises haven’t gone away. Our relatively brief lockdown won’t solve longer-term urban problems: dependence on fossil fuels, rising carbon emissions, poor air quality, dysfunctional housing markets, loss of biodiversity, divisions between the rich and the poor, low paid work. These are going to need our attention again.

The coronavirus crisis has offered a new perspective on these problems – and the limits of the way we have run our urban world over the last few decades. Cities are key nodes in our complex and highly connected global society, facilitating the rapid flow of people, goods and money, the rise of corporate wealth and the privatisation of land, assets and basic services. This has brought gains for some through foreign travel, an abundance of consumer products, inward investment and steady economic growth.

But we are now seeing a flip side to this globalised urban world. A densely connected world can quickly turn a localised disease into a pandemic; large areas of the economy are run by large corporates who don’t always meet basic public needs; land and resources can lie empty for years; and low paid workers in the informal or gig economy can be left exposed with little protection.

This model has the perfect conditions for creating a crisis like coronavirus. It’s also really bad at dealing with it. So something else is required to guide us into the future. The old story – in which cities compete against one another to improve their place in the global pecking order – was never great at meeting everyone’s needs. But now it’s looking very risky, given the need for increased cooperation and local resilience.

After coronavirus, a key question emerges: what in essence, is a city for? Is it to pursue growth, attract inward investment and compete against global rivals? Or is it to maximise quality of life for all, build local resilience and sustainability? These are not always mutually exclusive, but it’s a question of regaining balance. Beyond politics and ideology, most people simply want to be safe and healthy, especially faced by future threats, be they climate, weather or virus related.

Over the last 20 years as an urban geographer, I have been learning what needs to change to make cities more sustainable, green, fair and accessible. Recently, I described this in a book alongside a guide for civic leaders on how to tackle the climate emergency. Now, the lockdown has thrown us all into a real-time laboratory full of living examples of what a more sustainable future might look like. We have a perfect opportunity to study and explore which of these could be locked in to build sustainable, and safer, cities.

This has already started. Many things have become possible in the last few weeks. In many places, rapid changes have been unleashed to control the economy, health, transport and food. We are surrounded by fragments of progressive urban policy: eviction cancellations, nationalised services, free transport and healthcare, sick pay and wage guarantees. There is also a flourishing of community-based mutual aid networks as people volunteer to help the most vulnerable with daily tasks. Yesterday’s radical ideas are becoming today’s pragmatic choices.

We can learn a lot from these crisis-led innovations as we create more permanent urban policy choices to make life more pleasant and safer for all. Below I discuss a few key areas of city life that are currently providing some options.

Breaking car dependency

Many people around the world are currently surrounded by much quieter streets. This presents us with a huge opportunity to re-imagine and lock in a different kind of urban mobility. Some cities are already doing so: Milan, for example, has announced that it will turn 35km of streets over to cyclists and pedestrians after the crisis.

Streets with fewer cars have shown people what more liveable, walkable neighbourhoods would look like. When lockdown is over and society returns to the huge task of reducing transport emissions and improving air quality, we need to remember that lower car use quickly became the new normal. This is important. Reducing traffic levels, some say by up to 60% between now and 2030, may be key to avoiding dangerous levels of global warming.

As I have previously outlined, this reduction would address many longstanding urban policy concerns – the erosion of public space, debt, the shift to out of town retail centres and the decline of local high streets, road deaths and casualties, poor air quality and growing carbon emissions. Accessible, affordable, zero-carbon, public transport is key to supporting a less car dependent urban future.

This crisis has revealed the significant inequalities in people’s ability to move about cities. In many countries, including my own (the UK), deregulation and privatisation has facilitated corporate operators to run bits of the transport system in the interest of shareholders rather than users. Millions face transport poverty, where they can’t afford to own and run a car, and lack access to affordable mass transit options. This has taken a new twist during this crisis. For many vulnerable people, whether there is a transit system to access hospitals, food and other essential services can be a matter of life or death.

COVID-19 has also highlighted how key workers underpin our daily lives. Creating good quality affordable transport for them is therefore crucial. Some awareness of this existed before coronavirus: in 2018 one French city introduced free buses, while Luxembourg made all its public transport free. But in the wake of the current crisis places across the world have been creating free transit, especially to key workers and for vulnerable people.

To meet ambitious targets for emission reductions, there needs to be a significant shift away from personal car use within a decade or so. The pandemic has offered insights into how this could be achieved through limiting car use for essential uses and those with mobility issues, with affordable public transport becoming the new norm for most people in cities.

Building active travel networks across regions also makes more sense than ever. Bikes have been seen by many places as better options for getting around. Walking and cycling infrastructure can play a huge role in getting people around effectively and also making them healthier.

The inadequacies of pedestrian space have also been revealed, especially for effective social distancing. To build in future resilience, there’s a strong rationale for creating generous pavements and sidewalks that take space from motor vehicles. And, given there are around 6,000 pedestrians killed or seriously injured in road accidents every year in the UK, a roll out of lower speed limits could help reduce hospital admissions and make a contribution in future epidemic management.

The lockdown has also brought about significant reductions in air pollution. One study estimated that the lockdown in China saved 77,000 lives just by reducing this pollution. Such reductions are particularly key given that worse air quality could increase the risk of death from COVID-19. Given the health and social care costs associated with dealing with poor air quality, current increases in cleaner air need to be locked in to reduce the burden on health services for the future.

Aviation has taken a hit, with total flights declining by more than half during the crisis. This offers a glimpse of the types and volumes of flying that might feel surplus to requirements in the future.

Cities will need to move quickly to lock in these lower mobility expectations, especially low car volumes, less aviation, quality affordable mass transit and active travel. We are all living the reality of simply travelling less, and shifting activity online. This is a huge opportunity to review working practices, leisure and retail habits, and argue for spending to support affordable and sustainable travel for all.

The socially useful city

We have become used to the shortcomings of the modern city economy – low paid and precarious jobs, independent businesses squeezed out by large corporations, land and resources shifting from private to public hands, growing divisions between rich and poor neighbourhoods. Coronavirus has thrown many of these into stark relief.

Low earning workers, especially women, have few options but to continue working and be exposed to infection, hospitals struggle for basic equipment, those in higher income neighbourhoods have better spaces for exercise and leisure.

But what has been most staggering about the response to the crisis is the rapid uptake of measures that only days ago would have been unthinkable: mortgage and rent holidays, statutory sick pay, shifts to nationalise services especially health and transport, wage guarantees, suspending evictions, and debt cancellations. The current crisis has started to rip up ideas led by the free market.

We now seem to be revaluing what matters. Rather than being considered low skilled extras on the fringes of the economy, key workers, especially in health and food, are being revered for the role they play in supporting our wellbeing. Local shops are experiencing renewed support as they offer stronger personal connections and commitment to their community. These tendencies are an opportunity to restructure high streets and create diverse local markets which can meet community needs and build resilience to weather future crises.

This crisis has also highlighted who has enough money to live on. Beyond government job retention and self-employed income schemes, more radical propositions are emerging that are changing people’s relationship to work. A universal basic income is an idea that has come of age during this crisis – an unconditional, automatic non-means tested payment to every individual as a right of citizenship. The Spanish government has agreed to roll out such a scheme nationally as soon as possible, and there is sustained interest in many other places.

The idea of a minimum income guarantee is also gaining momentum; a renewed interest in the idea of a universal and unconditional safety net that can offer dignity and safety and offer options for more sustainable living.

The social economy can provide further insights for refocusing city economies after coronavirus. Made up of community businesses, co-operatives and voluntary organisations, this social economy creates goods, services and employment that are more locally based, and community grounded in a range of areas: renewable energy, sustainable housing, food and micro finance. They build in benefits including local employment and procurement, fairer pay, better conditions, sustainable resource use, democratic accountability, and a commitment to social justice.

Derelict buildings and land banked by large scale developers could be redeployed by community organisations to build local resilience through community farms, renewables and housing, as well as leisure, local biodiversity and carbon storage.

It’s also clear that parts of the economy, such as gambling and advertising corporations, bailiffs and corporate lobbyists, are less socially useful than others. There are signs of how the economy can change in positive directions. Many firms are temporarily shifting to more socially useful production, making, for example, hand sanitiser, ventilators and medical wear.

These short term glimpses of a more socially useful economy should provide inspiration when considering future urban economic planning. Factories might transition to manufacturing wind turbines, e-bikes, insulation panels and heat pumps. And excess downtown corporate office space or luxury apartments could be retrofitted to support socially useful activities – key worker accommodation, libraries, creches, day centres, colleges for transition skills, and co-working spaces.

A green urban commons

Further greening of cities after coronavirus would offer real and widespread benefits. During lockdown, many people are more aware how little green space they have access to on their doorsteps. Many are also stuck in cramped conditions with little or no access to outdoor spaces.

Quality public and green places need to be radically expanded so people can gather and heal after the trauma of this experience. Now is a good time to supercharge such plans. Diverse green spaces directly underpin our emotional and psychological wellbeing and offer a range of positive effects on carbon sequestration, air purification and wildlife preservation.

Neighbourhood design inspired by nature can support this. Interweaving the places we live with extensive natural spaces linked to active travel opportunities can reduce car dependency, increase biodiversity and create options for meaningful leisure on our doorsteps. They can also incorporate local food production and features to cope with flooding, such as sustainable urban drainage and water gardens, further increasing future crisis resilience.

There’s also a strong rationale for prioritising street-by-street retrofit. In the event of future lockdowns during cold months, warm, low energy and well insulated homes can help reduce other problems around fuel poverty and excess winter deaths.

This moment offers a real opportunity to lay the foundations for a new deal for nature and animals. This is more important now than ever. Animals and wildlife, normally in rapid decline, are finding ways to regain a foothold in this respite of human activity – but they may be further threatened when lockdown comes to an end. Ways to create a more equal balance with our fellow species include expanding habitats for wildlife, restoring damaged natural areas, reducing dependency on intensive animal farming as well as meat-based diets.

In addition, researchers are starting to understand how zoonotic diseases (those transferred from animals to humans) like COVID-19 may be a hidden outcome of the global scale of human development. A recent report by the UN Environment Programme explored how the rapid growth of urban populations across the world along with reductions in pristine ecosystems, are creating opportunities for pathogens to pass between animals and people. Regenerating and protecting natural spaces could be a key part of future disease resilience.

What next?

COVID-19 clearly presents a significant juncture. There is still trauma and loss ahead. There may be market collapse and a prolonged depression. There are also tendencies towards political and corporate bodies exploiting this crisis for their own ends.

For our urban world this could mean more of the negatives discussed earlier – insecurity, privatisation, division and authoritarianism. And as lockdown ends, there may be a rebound effect, as people understandably rush to embrace travel, work and consumerism, creating a significant emissions and pollution surge.

No particular urban future is inevitable. The future story, and reality, of our towns and cities is up for grabs. The positives that are glimpsed during this crisis could feasibly be locked in and scaled up to create a fairer, greener, safer urban future. We can all live well, and even flourish, in cities even if we have and do a little bit less of the things we have become used to. Revaluing what’s important – community, friendship, family life – allows us to see how much we already have that can improve our wellbeing.

Often ideas start to converge under a single banner. Many in this article can be understood through the idea of the Green New Deal – a proposed set of policies to tackle climate change and inequality, create good jobs and protect nature. It’s an approach which has a lot to offer cities after this coronavirus crisis. It points to an urban economy based on key foundations of public services, an economy operating within the ecological limits of our precious biosphere, with a social safety net for all. These ideas are now being seriously considered by some cities, such as Amsterdam, as they think about how to rebuild their economies.

How city governance responds in this crisis and afterwards will be key. There will certainly be a much bigger role for the state, and this might be more authoritarian as recent emergency powers over border controls, surveillance and enforced quarantines attest.

But there is a way of countering these tendencies – by creating an enabling, responsive, participatory state where solutions are reached with citizens, rather than imposed on them. A meaningful state-civil society contract means the state can act powerfully but also take the side of citizens, through, for example shifting assets, resources, taxes and welfare in their favour. We are seeing glimpses of this already through a new municiaplism, with Barcelona as one of the leading examples.

It’s difficult to predict how things will actually turn out in such a fast moving environment. What I have presented here are some glimpses of doable, commonsense actions that could be used to build sustainable cities out of the coronavirus crisis.

Ten ideas to improve cities

These can be summed up in ten ideas that cities could implement after this crisis:

1. Reallocate road space for daily exercise and active travel
2. Subsidise free buses for key workers, and re-regulate public transport to create affordable, zero-carbon mass transit
3. Trial wage guarantee or basic income schemes to make sure no one is left behind
4. Shift subsidies to promote socially useful production
5. Plan to ensure homes are warm and comfortable for any future crises
6. Allocate unused land for exercise, leisure, wildlife and biodiversity
7. Support community businesses and provide land to increase the supply of local food
8. Commit to speed reductions to reduce deaths and ease the strain on health services
9. Create more support for local businesses and invest in local shops and high streets
10. Use indicators to count the things that matter, especially unpaid care work, key workers, quality of life, and environmental protection.

Economic Sanctions: An Alternative to War or War by Alternative Means? This is shaping up to be the next big Democratic foreign policy debate after coronavirus. by Matthew Petti

Two former Obama administration officials defended the use of economic sanctions even as they slammed the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against Iran last week.

A growing coalition on the left is blaming the Trump administration’s self-described policy of “super maximum economic pressure” for worsening the coronavirus pandemic ravaging Iran. But some opponents of the pressure campaign believe America needs to kick its addiction to sanctions overall, while others say that sanctions are a valuable tool of diplomacy being misused by the Trump administration.

Their debate could shape the next Democratic administration’s approach to foreign policy.

Progressives had been souring on sanctions even before the coronavirus pandemic began. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D–Minn.) had proposed a bill in February that would require Congress’s approval before the President could impose or renew economic sanctions.

“Sanctions is not a strategy,” said Kate Kizer, policy director at Win Without War, at a February 12 event rolling out Omar’s foreign policy proposals. She called sanctions a “reflexive tool being used when we want to change a state’s behavior because we’ve divested from the other tools of statecraft.”

Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute, also spoke at the event. He later told the National Interest that progressives increasingly see sanctions as “not an alternative to war, but a form of war.”

The coronavirus pandemic has now brought progressive and centrist Democrats together in calling for temporary economic relief to Iran. Some of the voices against pressuring Iran have made it clear that they do not oppose sanctions on principle, however.

Rep. Tom Malinowski (D–N.J.) told the audience at a National Iranian American Council event on Thursday that the United States has “both a moral obligation and a strategic opportunity to ease up on the sanctions that have been imposed” on Iran.

But Malinowski, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 2014 to 2017, also emphasized that he is a “strong and passionate supporter” of U.S. sanctions against the “genocidal” Syrian government.

“I can support sanctions under many circumstances, but the idea that you can starve an authoritarian regime into collapse is just belied by all of our experiences, even in cases where sanctions have been successful at influencing authoritarian regimes to change,” he said.

The United States currently imposes broad economic sanctions on North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Venezuela and Cuba. The U.S. government had also enforced a near-total United Nations embargo on Iraq from 1991 until the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Richard Nephew, who served as Principal Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the Department of State from 2013 to 2015, made a similar argument at a CATO Institute event on April 20.

Nephew argued that the current sanctions regime on Iran “ultimately will make it harder to get countries to join with us when we pursue sanctions campaigns in places where they are seriously needed, where they will be a compliment to diplomacy as part of a broader strategic attempt to address issues that exist.”

“That would be both a problem in terms of how U.S. administrations can deal with future international issues, but potentially a very dangerous one if that meant that our options would be far more limited in future conflict scenarios,” he claimed.

Nephew, the lead sanctions expert on the Obama administration’s negotiating team with Iran, claimed that U.S. sanctions helped bring Iran to the negotiating table in 2015. But he conceded that sanctions have been misused even before the Trump era.

“The problem with sanctions over the past twenty or thirty years—or we could make an argument, much longer—has been that we have confused tool with strategy and strategy with tool,” he said. “What we’re doing in many cases is simply applying sanctions and hoping that the outcome after that will be something that we view as positive.”

Will Anything Really Change If Kim Jong-Un Dies? The regime might be less stable, but the Kim family isn't going away. by Rintaro Nishimura

As crazy as it sounds, Kim Jong-un brings stability and relative predictability to North Korea. Would his sudden death ensue in a smooth transition and continuation of the status quo, or a power struggle between elites that may destroy the regime altogether? 

Considering the Kim family’s importance to the nation’s identity, the first scenario seems far more likely. After all, the legitimacy of authority comes from being a member of the family.  

In that case, the first question that comes to mind is, who will succeed Kim Jong-un? The increasing presence of Kim Yo-Jong—Kim Jong-un’s sister—in the party’s leadership suggests she could head the state eventually. However, questions of a successor are not as important as what happens during the transition period. 

Kim Jong-un was named Kim Jong-il’s successor in 2009 and had two years to prepare before succeeding his father upon his death in 2011. At the time, experts had pointed out that unhappy members of the military might contest the succession of an inexperienced Kim Jong-un. That seems to be the case today, with some experts questioning whether the political and military elites would back another inexperienced successor. 

We can assume that the political and military elite will back the new ruler. The very public purging of top officials between 2011 and 2017 could be replicated by Kim Jong-un’s successor to secure his/her authority. If this is the case, the elite would rather stay in the sphere of power than risk losing that position. 

In actuality, the presence of foreign countries poses a far greater challenge to the stability of North Korea. Past actions prove that North Korea will attempt to downplay the significance of the Supreme Leader’s death with increased military actions. Currently, the world is preoccupied with coronavirus, but that could change if Kim Jong-un dies. In particular, the United States will need to practice restraint, unlike in the past, when President Trump made explicit threats that military solutions were “locked and loaded.” 

China may also be prompted to move into North Korea if the situation becomes dire. While China remains on better terms with North Korea than others, they have had issues dealing with Kim Jong-un. Trade may have increased, but hostile acts, such as the launch of a Hwasong-12 missile during the inaugural Belt and Road Forum, question the ability of Beijing to rein in Pyongyang. China may try to place a pro-China leader or elites close to the leader in an attempt to further influence Pyongyang. Discussion between America and China will be paramount to ensure that no major conflict breaks out during the transition.

As a result of the overwhelming victory for President Moon Jae-in’s party in the National Assembly elections two weeks ago, Seoul is likely to resume their proactive approach towards Pyongyang. This would allow North Korea to temporarily ramp up military actions, as Moon is unlikely to escalate tensions like his conservative counterparts. South Korea will want a smooth transition in order to restart reunification talks. To achieve this, coordination with the United States will be desirable to ensure no mixed signals are sent. 

If we have learned anything about North Korea throughout history, it is the fact that perceived weakness only fuels resistance. Any country’s attempt to exploit Pyongyang’s weakness will be met by a stronger sense of self-reliance (juche) by North Korea. 

It is optimistic to believe that Kim Jong-un’s death will be the death of North Korea. In fact, it would be an error in signaling from other countries that may set off a chain reaction, leading to a full-blown conflict over North Korea. 

Regardless of Kim’s health, this uncertainty surrounding North Korea is something to consider for years to come.

Why Haven't We Run Out Of Food During the Coronavirus Lockdown? Our food system has proven to be robust and resilient and shortages are demand-based rather than supply-based. by Michael von Massow and Alfons Weersink

We are living through a period in which many jurisdictions have shut down virtually all non-essential commerce. People are working from home or have been temporarily laid off.

We have seen rushes on food and grocery items like toilet paper and hand sanitizer that have resulted in some short-term shortages in stores.

Some have questioned the resilience of our food system and whether we could run out of food. The easy answer is we are not running out of food. Our food system has proven to be robust and resilient and shortages are demand-based rather than supply-based.

We have cheap food. It doesn’t always feel like it, but Canadians spend among the lowest proportion of our income on food in the world. Canadians who don’t live in remote communities have an abundance of safe and affordable food. We also have an incredible diversity of food products available.

Stores are restocking

Yes, we have seen some shortages on grocery store shelves. But we have seen stores restocking regularly, and the expectation is that the system will catch up.

The just-in-time process used in our food system, in fact, is not unique to food supply chains. It is based on producing and shipping product to meet expected demands. It depends on accurate forecasts and smooth delivery.

We have seen a significant surge in demand as people buy large quantities in anticipation of being at home for long periods of time. This was exacerbated by panic buying, when people saw shortages in the store or heard of shortages in news reports. Products are being quickly restocked, even though they’re often snapped up quickly.

We will see a return to some semblance of normality reasonably soon — at least with respect to food stocks in stores. This is supported by policies at stores that are limiting quantities that people can purchase.

Demand for things like hand sanitizer continue to be high. Demand for other food products will probably stabilize relatively quickly, even if people continue to hold extra stock at home. Grocery stores have seen an increase in demand for food as restaurants are closed, but that simply shifts demand from food service distribution to supermarket distribution, and isn’t leading to food supply shortages.

We are also seeing larger individual shopping orders as consumers minimize the number of times they have to go to the grocery store.

Milk dumping

While there have been some shortages at grocery stores, we’ve also seen reports of farmers dumping milk or plowing down crops.

This is caused by the requirement for adjustments in the food system. As demand has decreased in food services, it’s increased in retail. So why is milk being dumped and why are crops being mowed down?

It’s because raw product needs to be diverted to new processors and products, and other products need to be diverted to different processors. Some products require packaging changes. Professional bakers buy industrial-sized bags of flour, for example, but most retailers won’t normally carry that size.

These adjustments take time, and for perishable products like milk and produce, storage isn’t available. These adjustments are now under way and products are beginning to flow through supply chains more normally.

No border closures

Food supply chains have been protected from border closures this far, and that’s expected to continue. The most important border for Canada’s food supply chain, and that of the United States too, is the Canada-U.S. border. More than half of our food imports come from the U.S.

During the winter months, we import more. But fresh local produce is available to most Canadians in the warmer months.

Even if the border closed, we would still not go hungry. We would have less fresh produce, but we’d still have Canadian apples and root vegetables in storage. We would also have frozen products available.

Given the sales forecasts for these items, we probably wouldn’t begin to run short until the Canadian growing season had kicked in. But there would be bread, milk, meat and cheese readily available. We might see a decrease in variety, but we wouldn’t run out of food. And there’s no indication that there’s any risk of the border closing in the short run.

Food processing could be impacted

One area of concern is the processing sector. There are fewer processing plants than there are both farmers and retail stores.

If plants close, production stops. We have seen the temporary closure of a pork processor in Québec due to COVID-19 and a big beef plant in Alberta has temporarily closed.

The Québec plant is reopening and the Alberta plant has shut down to mitigate the risk of employees getting sick. While there is not yet a fixed date for the Cargill plant in Alberta to re-open, it is expected to be soon. These short-term closures can cause hardships, particularly for farmers, but shouldn’t significantly affect availability on grocery shelves.

While the Cargill represents almost 40 per cent of the beef processing capacity in Canada, our beef industry is highly integrated with the American industry with both livestock and beef products flowing in both directions.

Plant closures would cause losses for perishable products like milk or produce. But for meat producers, livestock can be diverted or held until processors reopen. This can cause significant losses for farmers. Prices go down with extra supply and if livestock has to be shipped further and costs go up if animals have to be held. But unless the number of closures increases dramatically and closures are enduring, we will continue to see food on grocery shelves.