Interview with Senator Chris Murphy: Coronavirus Means It’s “Time For Congress To Step Up” The Democratic heavyweight says it’s urgent to undo the damage of the past three years. by Matthew Petti

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has always wanted Congress to take a more active role in foreign policy. Now, it’s more urgent than ever.

Murphy is quickly stepping into his role as the “McCain of the left” —the face of foreign policy consensus in the Democratic Party.

Over the past five years, he spearheaded the opposition against U.S. involvement in Yemen, helping push Congress to pass its first war powers resolution in history. And he’s met with political players around the world, from Ukrainian protesters to the foreign minister of Iran.

The United States is stumbling into an era of great power competition with one hand tied behind its back, Murphy now warns, and the next administration and the current Congress both have to play a role in fixing the damage.

The National Interest spoke to the senator about issues around the world, from the coronavirus pandemic to the political crisis in Venezuela. Below is a transcript of the conversation, lightly edited for clarity.

Great to meet you, Senator Murphy. Thank you for your time. I know it’s pretty busy for everyone, especially with coronavirus. That’s why I wanted to talk to you.

You’ve long been an advocate of Congress taking a bigger role in foreign policy, which is gaining more and more traction, especially on the progressive side of things. Could you tell me how Congress could play a more productive role in this global crisis that’s calling into question U.S. leadership?

The virus is a clear indicator that a threat can emerge to the United States on the other side of the world, and result in the death of tens of thousands of Americans within months. When it comes to non-conventional threats like pandemic disease, borders don’t matter. Today, with the Trump administration, you’re witnessing the consequences of our withdrawal from the world.

We took two thirds of our scientists out of China in the years approaching the breakout of coronavirus. We shattered our alliance with our European partners just at the moment that we needed to be working with them to hold China to account, make sure that we have enough medical equipment in the United States to fight the disease.

We are walking away from the WHO [World Health Organization] at the moment when only WHO can effectively stand up a future global public health infrastructure that can stop the next pandemic.

We warned the administration that there would be consequences for its wholesale retreat from the world, and we are now living with those consequences.

You ask what Congress can do. Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to be a coequal branch with respect to foreign policy. Now is the time for Congress to step up.

We could pass legislation requiring the administration to rejoin the WHO. We could pass legislation joining the United States to the global vaccine development effort.

We could pass legislation increasing foreign aid to make sure that we’re beating the virus everywhere, because we know that so long as it exists in a refugee camp somewhere in the Middle East, it’s still a threat to the United States

Congress has lots of mechanisms by which we could stand up the kinds of public health programming that are needed to muster the short-term and long-term responses we need to pandemic disease.

You’ve said that “the reason we’re in this crisis is not because of anything China did,” because we should have been prepared for it ourselves, but a lot of Republicans have introduced this idea that China should somehow be held to account or “pay” for the pandemic.

Where do you stand on this issue, and are there areas where you do think we need to push back harder against the Chinese government?

Well, first, I advise you to watch the whole clip, not just the three words that were picked out of it, because what I’ve said has been consistent: China bears responsibility for its efforts to cover up the initial extent of the virus and its continued efforts to obfuscate the scientific information we need to develop vaccines and treatments.

But there was no greater cheerleader for China’s coverup in January and February than President Donald Trump. On twelve different occasions, he praised China’s response. He lauded their transparency.

He was asked a point-blank question on February 7th as to whether China was covering up anything about the virus. He said, “no, they’re running a model response.”

Nobody frustrated the world’s efforts to try to get China to change its early behaviors more than Donald Trump did.

My point is that, while China bears much responsibility for this crisis, it was not inevitable that a hundred, two hundred thousand Americans had to die. The president has run an abysmal response to the virus, which has resulted in it being much worse in the United States than it had to be.

And so there’s lots of responsibility to go around. The Chinese bear much of it, but there is no way that the mistakes made in China needed to result in seventy thousand, a hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand Americans dying.

The question is, what do you do about it? Is the right response to withdraw from the WHO? Because if your complaint is that China has too much influence at the WHO, you essentially are exacerbating the problem that you’re seeking to solve by pulling the United States out.

I just haven’t seen any action from this administration that actually addresses the complaints they make about China.

Another country that’s been struck with the coronavirus, and has maybe been criticized for its own lack of transparency, is Iran. You and several other members of Congress have called for engagement with Iran over this coronavirus crisis, which the Trump administration has really been dragging its feet on.

How do you think the United States should be engaging Iran, both on coronavirus and in general, and what role should Congress be playing in this?

The case that we tried to make is that the Iranian people are not our adversary. The Iranian regime is our adversary. That’s a hard case to make when our sanctions are, in part, responsible for the death of innocent civilians due to coronavirus.

There’s no doubt that our current sanctions make it harder for Iran to stand up a response to this epidemic.

And our sanctions make it easier for the Iranian regime to make the case to their people that it’s the United States that’s standing in the way of medicines and medical technologies being delivered to the Iranian people.

The regime’s always engaged in propaganda that’s divorced from the truth, but it is true that our sanctions are hindering the Iranian medical response. What I think we should be doing is making sure that none of our sanctions are resulting in innocent people in Iran dying of coronavirus. I also think this is an opportunity for engagement.

This is a moment when the number one threat to Iran and the number one threat to the United States is the same thing—a virus. It could be a mechanism by which we could start talking to each other.

The Trump administration has said from the beginning, whether you believe them or not, that their goal is engagement, and that they see sanctions as a pathway to engagement. Maybe this isn’t the pathway that you initially envisioned, but it’s an opportunity, and right now, it’s an opportunity that the administration is ignoring.

I’m wondering specifically what you think Congress’ role in this can be, because a lot of these sanctions are up to executive discretion, but Congress also holds a lot of power over this.

There’s a majority in Congress that voted for the war powers resolution. I’m wondering what opportunities you see there.

Very few.

I think, A, it’s difficult for Congress to micromanage sanctions policy. What I’m talking about is nuanced: decisions about what is subject to and what is exempt from sanctions.

B, there’s just not the political will in the Senate with Mitch McConnell as majority leader to pass a bill that eases medical-related sanctions on Iran today.

I just think, realistically, this is an endeavor the administration has to undertake.

I know that you met with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in Munich. He had said, after meeting with a different senator, that he engages with American lawmakers “just for clarifications, not for negotiations.”

I’m curious how he approached his conversation with you.

I’ve met with Foreign Minister Zarif on a number of occasions. I’ve met with him during the Obama administration and during the Trump administration.

That is my responsibility as a member of the [Senate] Foreign Relations Committee, to meet with foreign ministers, frankly regardless of whether they’re coming from a friendly country or an adversary.

My belief is that it’s important to keep dialogue open with Iran, even if that’s just through informal parliamentary channels. When I’m talking to Zarif, I’m not negotiating for the United States of America, just like when I’m talking to the French foreign minister, I’m not negotiating for America.

The administration conducts official international negotiations, not the Congress, unless the Congress is specifically authorized to do so. 

There’s a big looming deadline with the arms embargo on Iran about to expire. You told Al-Monitor two months ago that you’d support trying to re-up this embargo and “the nuclear deal doesn’t exist today,” so we would need more leverage going back into it.

Right now, the Trump administration is hinting that they want to re-up the arms embargo with this controversial unilateral snapback mechanism. Russia has said that it’s a non-starter, Iran has said that this will cause the deal to “die forever,” and the Europeans don’t seem very thrilled with it.

Do you think this is the path to go down to restore the embargo, and if so, how much political capital should we be willing to spend on it?

The JCPOA [nuclear deal] does not exist any longer. We violated the terms of the agreement, and thus compliance with it by other parties is now voluntary. It’s ridiculous for the administration to suggest that it can pick and choose the parts of the JCPOA that it wants to observe and enforce.

That’s a wonderful way to approach an international agreement: “I will not comply with the portions that my country is subject to, but I expect you to the portions that your country is subject to.”

I believe that the arms embargo is important and it needs to stay in place, and I think the Trump administration has put us in an awful position, because it is harder than ever to reimpose the arms embargo outside of the JCPOA.

I don’t have a lot of creative advice for the administration, other than get back inside the JCPOA, because if you’re inside the JCPOA, it makes an arms embargo much easier to reinstate.

They just vetoed the war powers resolution [related to Iran], which, if I’m correct, is the second time both houses of Congress have ever passed one. The first one was the Yemen war, which you were very much a part of. I’m curious why you chose Yemen as the test case for taking back war powers for Congress from the executive.

Obviously, Yemen and Iran are very different. We were and, to an extent, still are, actively engaged in fighting in Yemen. There’s a partial ceasefire today, but during most of the last five years, the United States has been actively involved in a war inside Yemen without authorization from Congress.

The Iranian war powers resolution is a little different, because we are not actively engaged in active hostilities with Iran. That war powers resolution was, frankly, more forward-looking to make sure that we didn’t fall into an unauthorized war with Iran.

But in Yemen, there were people dying every day due to U.S. planes and U.S. bombs.

It was a war that was making the United States less safe, every single day. Al Qaeda and ISIS were growing their power every day inside Yemen. Yemenis were being radicalized against the United States. The humanitarian catastrophe was being looked upon globally as the responsibility of the United States. It was cratering our reputation internationally.

It was a disaster on all fronts. I felt it was imperative that we pull the United States out of it. I still feel that way.

I’m glad that Congress passed the war powers resolution, and I’m sorry that the president still sees fit to blindly follow the Saudis into a war that may be in the Saudis’ best interest but is certainly not in ours.

We’re going to jump all the way across the world [now]. In Venezuela last week, we saw this very bizarre armed clash—it’s unclear exactly what happened, but apparently there were Americans involved.

You told the Trump administration that “[e]ither the U.S. government was unaware of these planned operations, or was aware and allowed them to proceed. Both possibilities are problematic.”

What do you think we could be doing better in terms of our Venezuela policy, both in terms of the incident that just happened and our more general stance towards [rival claimants to the Venezuelan presidency] Guaidó and Maduro?

Our Venezuela policy has been an absolute disaster. All it’s done has made Maduro stronger. It’s built on fantasy, and it needs to be based on reality.

What we did was play all of our cards right at the initial moment, which is generally Trump’s overall strategy in foreign policy. There’s no nuance. There’s no strategy. There’s no long-term play.

We should have built a regional and international coalition to ratchet up pressure on Maduro, and give him a way out. Instead, we immediately recognized Guaidó.

We put perhaps the worst possible person in place as our envoy—a capable diplomat, but somebody who is ready-made to be cast as an American imperialist by the Venezuelan regime.

And ultimately, we came off looking powerless, weak, and feckless, because we backed Guaidó and we couldn’t do anything about it.

I think it’s really hard to restart at this point. I’ve suggested imposing an aid-for-food program, in which we—I’m sorry, an oil-for-aid program—in which we relax some of our sanctions policy in exchange for any revenues going directly to aid the Venezuelan people.

I think that our totally dysfunctional relationship with Russia and China greatly hamstrings our ability to try to pressure the Venezuelan regime. The next administration’s going to have to find a way to work with Russia and China on Venezuela policy.

Having no diplomatic relationship with Cuba also hurts.

The Trump administration is in a position where they can’t win in Venezuela, and the next administration is going to essentially have to restart our Venezuela policy from scratch.

I don’t know what happened last week. I trust that the American government wasn’t involved. But if we didn’t know that this operation was being planned, that shows you how disconnected from reality we are inside the country.

We’re going to get another administration in either less than a year, or in four years. What’s your advice to them to undo the damage that’s been incurred?

The first thing Joe Biden’s going to have to do is convince hundreds of capable diplomats who fled the Trump administration to come back. We simply don’t have the personnel right now to represent the United States abroad. We’re going to have to restock our diplomatic corps.

Second, a Democratic administration is going to have to recognize that we are [unintelligible] in terms of where our resources are. We’re spending $13 billion on global public health today compared to $740 billion on military operations. That makes no sense.

We’re going to have to change the way that we spend our money.

And we’re going to have to do some hard work to prove to the world that the Trump administration’s wholesale withdrawal from global institutions was an anomaly.

There’s just not as much room as there used to be at the table for the United States, because China has taken up so much of it.

We’re going to have to do some hard work to rejoin international forums and convince countries to join us, rather than the Chinese, who have gradually stepped into the vacuum we’ve created.

Question: Could Sewage Systems Help Track the Coronavirus? A revolutionary idea. by Ethen Kim Lieser

In hoping to add another weapon to keep close track of future coronavirus outbreaks, scientists are eyeing a new strategy that involves monitoring sewage systems.

Researchers from MIT’s wastewater analytics spinout Biobot, Harvard University, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston have started a venture that will look for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in fecal matter in sewage systems.

“We are establishing protocols to test sewage for SARS-CoV-2. If successful, this data will give communities a dynamic map of the virus as it spreads to new places,” Biobot says on its website.

The site adds: “We analyze viruses, bacteria and chemical metabolites that are excreted in urine and stool and collected in sewers. This information is a readout of our health and wellbeing as a community. We map this data, empowering communities to tackle public health proactively.”

Other countries like China and France have already jumped on board in utilizing this newfound method to gain keen insights into where the next potential outbreak could occur.

Last month, researchers from China discovered that SARS-CoV-2 could be found alive in fecal matter, meaning it is indeed possible to transmit the contagion through sewage systems. The team published its findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In Paris, researchers were able to sample sewage across major parts of the city, and they detected a rise and fall in novel coronavirus concentrations that corresponded to outbreaks in the region.

Researchers said this particular study was the first to prove that this technique could, in fact, detect a sharp rise in COVID-19-positive concentrations in sewage before confirmed cases exploded in clinics. The team posted the study on medRxiv.

The diverse team from Biobot, Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital is made up of biologists, epidemiologists, data scientists, urban planners and engineers.

Armed with such knowledge in different fields, the data garnered from the sewage systems will be used to assist with measuring the scope of the outbreak and impact on hospital capacity, providing decision support for officials, tracking the effectiveness of outbreak-curbing measures and providing early warning for the reemergence of the virus.

Although all of the work is done pro bono, Biobot is asking interested communities to cover the costs of the sampling kit, along with shipping, which comes to about $120.

Did 75 Anti-Lockdown Protesters in Wisconsin Test Positive for Coronavirus? Not Quite. Here's what we know: So in other words, it is possible that some of those 75 new cases came from those who attended the rally in Madison on the 24th, but it’s far from confirmed that that is the case. by Stephen Silver

A viral tweet made the rounds over the weekend, from an account called “Coronavirus Update.” Posted Sunday, it stated “BREAKING NEWS: At least 75 protestors tested positive for COVID-19 after attending a large rally against the stay-at-home order in Wisconsin.”

The tweet has been retweeted and liked thousands of times, and also quoted by other Twitter users, many of them in replies to President Trump. It seems to confirm suspicions that those protesting in close quarters against lockdowns are putting themselves at risk for coronavirus infection.

There was, indeed, a large protest at Wisconsin’s state capitol in Madison, which took place on April 24 and consisted of around 1,500 attendees. And yes, more than 70 people in Wisconsin have tested positive for the virus after attending a “large gathering” in recent weeks. But it has not been established that all or even most of those positive tests came from attendees at that specific protest.

According to an Associated Press story last Friday, the state’s Department of Health makes a practice of asking those who have tested positive for COVID-19 if they have attended “any large gatherings.” The department does not, however ask which specific gathering the person attended, nor is it clear what the definition is of “large gatherings.” It did ask whether those who tested positive had voted in the state’s controversial April 7 primary election, but did not do so about the protest.

So in other words, it is possible that some of those 75 new cases came from those who attended the rally in Madison on the 24th, but it’s far from confirmed that that is the case.

It’s not clear what the source was for the “Coronavirus Update” tweet. Some sites, including WBAY and Channel One News, have run a picture of the Madison rally with that AP story, as did a website called Up North News, which is part of the Courier Newsroom network of surreptitiously liberal-leaning hyperlocal news sites. The latter site did make clear in the text of its story, however, that attendees weren’t asked which gathering they had attended.

Wisconsin’s current stay-at-home order runs through May 26. The state has reported nearly 2,000 new coronavirus cases since April 26, of which only 72 had attended a large gathering, the AP story said.

Like many states targeted by the anti-lockdown protests, Wisconsin has a Democratic governor, Tony Evers, who defeated two-term incumbent and former presidential candidate Scott Walker in 2018. The governor recently announced guidelines for reopening the state, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Did Missouri Just Out-Lawfare China? What makes the Missouri lawsuit so unique and noteworthy is that it seems to take on an air of the aforementioned Chinese approach to lawfare. In Missouri’s filing, the “law” is just as critical for desired effects as is diplomatic, informational, military, or economic ones that the American military traditionally employs. by Wilson VornDick

Sinister” is how the state of Missouri describes “an appalling campaign of deceit, concealment,  misfeasance, and inaction” woven by officials of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in its legal complaint on April 21 over the human and economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. In the complaint, Missouri identifies 5,800 confirmed cases, 177 Missourians dead, and untold economic damage. Quickly countering, Geng Shuang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the lawsuit was “frivolous” and “very absurd.” Meanwhile, weeks before the lawsuit was filed, President Trump tweeted in March that the world is at war with a “hidden enemy” and America is at a “wartime footing” as the coronavirus pandemic spread.   

Now with over eighty-thousand dead, more Americans lost than in the Vietnam War, and upwards of $2.2 trillion promised by the federal government to counter the pandemic and its calamitous effects on America, the administration may be preparing to seek reparations or other retaliatory measures against the PRC. The administration’s response would not be far off the mark from Missouri’s first of its kind lawsuit. But more importantly, if America is at a war-footing, then it is worth considering that Missouri may in fact be launching its own form of legal warfare or “lawfare” against the PRC. For national security practitioners and China watchers, this would be akin to China’s own form of legal warfare (法律战), a tactic and technique nested in its strategy known as the “Three Warfares” (三​战). 

Chinese Lawfare 101  

Essentially, the “Three Warfares” is a strategy meant to create and shape political power for the Chinese Communist Party, both domestically and abroad per China analyst Peter Mattis. Broken down into three distinct parts, the first of the “Three Warfares” is media or public opinion warfare (舆论战) which attempts to shape public opinion. Elsa Kania, writing in Jamestown Foundation, notes the second part, psychological warfare (心理战), as that which “seeks to undermine an adversary’s combat power, resolve, and decision-making, while exacerbating internal disputes to cause the enemy to divide into factions.” Finally, she describes lawfare, the third part and most pertinent to Missouri’s lawsuit, as envisioning the “use of all aspects of the law, including national law, international law, and the laws of war, in order to secure seizing “legal principle superiority” and delegitimize an adversary.” Ostensibly, the PRC has leveraged legal tactics and techniques such as those mentioned from territorial disputes over the South China Sea to economic arbitrations in the World Trade Organization. Moreover, growing anecdotal evidence suggests that it is becoming difficult to discern a clean break or firewall between actions of the PRC under the CCP’s party-state apparatus apart and separate from state-owned or private Chinese corporations, assets, or citizens. This is because the actions, dictates, and aspirations of the PRC prioritize dual-use, military-civilian fusion, and national strategies like Made in China 2025 make less and less of a distinction. At the moment, Beijing is using the pandemic to extend ever more control into various sectors and facets of its domestic and international influence and presence. These include placing CCP officials within the senior ranks of global information technology companies’ leadership hierarchies such as Alibaba or leveraging its commercial presence overseas tied to the Belt and Road Initiative to distribute masks and Chinese good-will, nicknamed “mask diplomacy,” to pandemic stricken countries on behalf of Beijing. Lawfare is no different in this regard. 

From a national security nexus, what makes the lawsuit by Missouri so unique and noteworthy is that it seems to take on an air of the aforementioned Chinese approach to lawfare. In Missouri’s filing, the “law” is just as critical for desired effects as is diplomatic, informational, military, or economic ones that the American military traditionally employs. The Joint Staff at the Pentagon advocated just such an approach of leveraging law among other instruments in a 2018 strategy document. In this way, the lawsuit by Missouri possesses an asymmetric, almost gray zone-ish feel. It is likely that a Chinese perspective with a heavily lawfare-biased strategic perspective would perceive it as such. To be clear, the American military did not contribute to the lawsuit, nor are there links to a broader strategy by the U.S. government. Rather, it appears to be an organic, bottom-up thrust by Missouri to make its citizens and state whole from the contagion. Missouri lodged the complaint on its own accord.

Missouri -Style Lawfare 

Jefferson City’s legal action is bold. Yet, significant legal hurdles remain. Jurists and legal scholars are quick to cite “sovereign immunity,” which grants the PRC and nations immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuit, as a high bar for the lawsuit to pass. Yet, two recent terrorism-related lawsuits have cleared just such a legal bar. lawsuits against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Sudan, brought by the victims and relatives of 9/11 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, have proceeded in American courts after decades and substantial legal wrangling that turned on sovereign immunity. While the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia continues to snake its way through the courts, a potential settlement was reached in February with Sudan as part of a broader sanctions relief package by America. These two cases may augur Missouri’s legal future against the PRC. 

However, it is too soon to tell. Much remains to be seen in a very dynamic, geo-strategically charged time as the present amid the backdrop of great-power competition. If the lawsuits proceed and the PRC is implicated, then Missouri may be justified to go after all manners of Chinese assets and enterprises operating in the state. And American companies in Missouri with significant Chinese interests could be in jeopardy. The state’s lawsuit may even portend more legal action by other American municipalities and states, even perhaps private citizens and companies. Additionally, the Missouri lawsuit could snow-ball across as others from across the international community file lawsuits of their own. To counter, the PRC will likely challenge or ju-jitsu Missouri’s litigation with its own brand of lawfare. 

Either way, as this legal battle plays out in the courts, the PRC will undoubtedly be monitoring it closely. American national security practitioners should do likewise. The lawsuit by Missouri appears to be part-n-parcel one and the same, a meld of state security and national security, inextricably linked in holding the PRC and, by default, the CCP accountable for the pandemic. It is no small order to say that the geostrategic and national security implications of this lawsuit will reverberate beyond the courtrooms in Jefferson City.  

Biosecurity Is the Lesson We Need to Learn from the Coronavirus Pandemic Biological outbreaks have been a fear among experts for decades. The ever-increasing encroachment upon natural habitats has resulted in zoonotic disease spillover to humans. by Daniel M. Gerstein and James Giordano

There is no scientific evidence that the virus that causes the coronavirus was bioengineered. However, that does not mean that humans do not bear some responsibility for this pandemic. Human activities such as disrupting environmental habitats, promoting the mixing of species in venues such as the wet market in Wuhan, and experimenting with pathogens in laboratories all present windows of vulnerability. 

To address this, America needs to have a new approach to biosafety and biosecurity that addresses the full range of biological threats that humankind and the global environment will face in the future.

Biological outbreaks have been a fear among experts for decades. The ever-increasing encroachment upon natural habitats has resulted in zoonotic disease spillover to humans. Recent examples include Rift Valley Fever, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, Yellow fever, Avian Influenza (H5N1), Avian Influenza (H7N9), Ebola, West Nile virus, the Zika virus and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). In fact, thirty new human pathogens have been detected in the last three decades, 75 percent of which have originated in animals. The latest, of course, is the SARS-CoV-2, which causes the coronavirus.

The viruses and related diseases are not necessarily new but the spillover to humans appears to be occurring with increasing frequency. These viruses are unfamiliar to human immune systems and therein lies the problem. In some instances, a new virus can be completely harmless, while in others it can be devastating. When further propagated by global supply chains, what previously might have been isolated pockets of disease turn into global concerns—and in the case of the coronavirus, a global pandemic.

The difference in severity is often because of small variances in the viral genomes. Consider, for example, the three coronavirus outbreaks—SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

SARS originated in China in 2002 and spread to about two dozen countries, infecting over eight thousand and killing 774. MERS originated in Saudi Arabia and spread to twenty-seven countries, infecting almost twenty-five hundred people and killing over 850. To date, official reports indicate that the virus that causes the coronavirus has infected more than three million people and caused over two hundred thousand deaths. As these data indicate, the coronavirus is far more infectious but also seems to be far less virulent than its more deadly coronavirus relations.

Changes to the viral genome can be caused by an antigenic shift where two viruses can combine to form a new viral subtype, or by antigenic drift caused by mutations resulting from errors that occur as the virus replicates. Thus, while all three coronaviruses seem to have originated in bats, their variances may be due to changes incurred as the virus passed through intermediate hosts such as civets for SARS and camels for MERS. At present, it remains unclear if the coronavirus involved pangolins as an intermediate species or passed directly to humans. 

Lab experiments are essential to understanding these pathogens. To be sure, throughout human history, countless lives have been saved as a result of laboratory research. And such science is absolutely necessary to protect not just human lives, but all living organisms, including animals and plants, and to better understand and shield the fragile biological ecosystems. But any such research should be conducted in settings that acknowledge and control the risks associated with agents capable of epidemic and pandemic spread. This is critical to upholding the ethical obligations of balancing benefits, burdens and harms of research.

Biosafety and biosecurity measures are routinely used to monitor and control work done in the biological laboratories in the United States and most other nations. Biosafety ensures that workers are protected from pathogens. Based on the risk posed by the pathogen being studied, defined biosafety levels specify the procedures and containment equipment necessary. Biosecurity measures ensure that pathogens are not inadvertently being released into the environment and are protected from those who might seek to use them for illegitimate purposes. As the U.S. Department of Agriculture states, biosecurity is about keeping “viruses, bacteria, funguses, parasites and other microorganisms—away from birds, property, and people.”

Over the years, key biodefense issues have gotten reduced attention—and that needs to change. As the coronavirus demonstrates, the potential exists for similar events in the future. By rethinking its approach to biosafety and biosecurity, America can reduce that risk.

So while the terms biosafety and biosecurity have been generally associated only with laboratory efforts, America should consider a broader approach—one that includes the global biological ecosystem. References such as the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories define protocols for working with pathogens in laboratories. A complementary volume should be developed that outlines how to prevent, prepare for, respond to and mitigate the effects of human activity that encroaches upon natural habitats and promotes the perilous mixing of species and their diseases.

Failure to implement and follow such biosafety and biosecurity approaches, both in laboratories and in the natural environment, could result in ever more coronavirus-like pandemics that threaten humanity with increasing regularity and dangerous consequences.

Trump’s Decision to Halt WHO Funding Could Cost American Lives While it is unclear for how long the president intends to suspend the payments, this is a dangerous strategy in the midst of a public health emergency of unprecedented scope. by Saad B. Omer

In the face of growing criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of the response to the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump recently announced the suspension of the U.S. payments to the World Health Organization. It seems, even before this announcement, the United States was behind in its previously committed payments to the WHO.     

While it is unclear for how long the president intends to suspend the payments, this is a dangerous strategy in the midst of a public health emergency of unprecedented scope. Should WHO epidemiologists really be forced to spend their time preparing emergency grant requests to countries to fill the resource gap due to the pause in the U.S. payments?  

Attempting to cut global health funding is not new for this administration. The president’s budget proposals have contained major reductions in foreign aid, including global health. For example, Trump has previously proposed cutting USAID’s global health budget by half and has attempted to eliminate the Fogarty International Center—NIH’s flagship institute for global health. In fact, in 2019 the administration eliminated the majority of funding for the Emerging Pandemic Threats program at USAID.  

The U.S. government spends less than 1 percent of its gross national income on non-military foreign aid. The biggest portion of this aid goes to global health. Given the announcement regarding WHO funding and proposed drastic cuts in the U.S. global health budget, this is a good time to take stock of America’s global health investments.  

Some of America’s past investments in WHO continue to pay dividends for successive generations. Smallpox eradication, an audacious WHO-led initiative that resulted in the extinction of a whole species for saving human lives, is one such example. The smallpox eradication program required approximately $100 million of support from international donors—with the United States as the biggest donor. After eradication, there is no need for treatment and vaccination for smallpox—resulting in not only the protection of lives but also substantial savings. As a result, American taxpayers recoup their investment in smallpox eradication every twenty-six days!  

To state it in the language the president is likely to relate to: this was a terrific deal for the American people.  

Even beyond WHO, America’s global health investments have a high return on investment. For example, eighty-nine cents of every dollar spent by the U.S. government on global health research and development goes to U.S.-based scientists and researchers. This money pays for research that creates American jobs while resulting in life-saving discoveries for the most vulnerable in the world. Between 1990 and 2013 global health innovations and programs were associated with 4.2 million fewer childhood deaths. If there ever was a win-win situation, this is it.   

Halting WHO’s funding, or even threatening to do so, can distract the global health agency whose annual budget is less than one-tenth of Ohio State’s annual budget. And these cuts would put American (and other) lives at risk. If WHO’s disease surveillance is disrupted, then the risk of an undetected flu pandemic will go up. If there are insufficient resources for WHO’s immunization program the risk of a resurgence of measles and its importation into the United States will increase. 

More specifically, the global influenza surveillance and response system supported financially and technically by the CDC, serves as an early warning system for pandemics—enhancing America’s health and economic security. Nigerian health workers trained for polio eradication with American support were instrumental in keeping Ebola away from American shores. And when polio is finally eradicated through American and international support and valiant efforts of health workers in Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; there will be a net benefit of approximately $25 billion over twenty years.  

So yes, there is substantial evidence that investments in WHO and global health are just that—investments. These investments benefit coal miners in West Virginia and mothers in Kansas by contributing to their health and economic security.   

However, despite demonstrable benefits to Americans, our reason for investing in WHO should not only be enlightened self-interest. A country with a history of moral leadership should not cease to be a shining city upon a hill—particularly when a pandemic has threatened the country’s wellbeing.  America’s claim to exceptionalism will ring hollow if it becomes an ordinary bystander in the face of global disease and its economic consequences.

'Deadly Dictatorship': How Rodrigo Duterte Has Attacked Freedom of the Media in Latest Closure of Main Broadcaster His populist electoral victory can in no way excuse the atrocities and yet Duterte’s chauvinistic style and cavalier actions still remain politically popular. by Tom Smith

After just four years in power, Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, has turned his country into a deadly dictatorship one again. Now the closure of the country’s major mainstream news platform ABS-CBN on May 5 in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic has struck deep historical chords in a country that has heard this sorry song before.

The broadcaster was ordered off air by the country’s media regulator, which said its licence had expired and needed to be renewed by Congress. But Duterte has had an ongoing battle with the independent ABS-CBN and the move was seen as a clear attack on media freedom.

The regime of former Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos also closed the broadcaster down in 1972 when it imposed martial law. Marcos’s regime murdered, disappeared and tortured its own people with impunity. Assassinations plagued public life at every level – and there were 3,257 officially documented killings.

Now Duterte’s death squads put the Marcos years into a chilling context. Some estimate at least 29,000 people have been killed in Duterte’s so-called drug war.

The current extent of the alleged genocide is hard to know and will be even harder without ABS-CBN. Investigative journalism and accurate reporting are practically impossible. Journalists are regularly assassinated along with lawyers and human rights workers. Families and society are bereft of justice and accountability. The Philippines has become increasingly perilous for many citizens and an understandable fear of retribution silences many in 2020 despite all the communication tools available.

The timing of the ABS-CBN shutdown could not be worse. Filipinos desperately need their largest broadcaster – the oldest in south-east Asia – for reliable information about COVID-19. Anti-vaxxer conspiracies around dengue fever and measles vaccinations have caused recent tragic outbreaks of both diseases in the Philippines. And yet Duterte’s brand of “medical populism” has spread misinformation, claiming people can rely on fictional “Filipino antibodies” to fight COVID-19.

Few checks on power remain

The velocity of Duterte’s reign of death and abuse has caught weak institutions and opponents unprepared. His populist electoral victory can in no way excuse the atrocities and yet Duterte’s chauvinistic style and cavalier actions still remain politically popular.

His hashtag friendly campaign title Du30 has become a powerful brand – if not now a violent and well-connected clan. Du30-ism is undeniably a cultural and political juggernaut that shows very few signs of abating, or being met by an emerging counter-force. Duterte now controls every aspect of public administration and there are no checks and balances to his power. The fourth estate is now severely – if not mortally – disabled and Du30’s power absolute, for now.

Duterte’s power over the security forces is based on an old and unsubtle system of patronage normally employed by local clans, mayors and alike. Now that the provincial “big boss” is resident in the presidential palace in Manila, he has a vast network of people in every institution in the country in his debt. The military has been overtly politicised and, conversely, politics and culture have become increasingly militarised.

Duterte enables both masked assassins on the back of motorbikes, and killers in uniform. Just as with Marcos, it will take decades to repair public trust and legitimacy in the security services.

‘Big Bossism’ reigns

Politicisation of supposedly independent judicial and legislative branches of government is all but confirmed with the shutdown of ABS-CBN. Duterte’s appointees dominate 11 of the 15 judges on the High Court, which protects him and his cronies from justice. The regime has now begun to target the education sector, robbing the next generations of a more progressive future.

Mandatory military training is being pushed in high schools to further militarise society. University students are being falsely targeted in the drug war and in the fight against communist insurgents using crude divide-and-conquer tactics.

Without a free media, new forms of cultural and political dissent will be needed. So far, social media has been no salvation – it was the horse Du30 rode in on and still dominates. His DDS – Duterte Diehard Supporters or Davao Death Squads, referring to the city where Duterte was a former mayor – patrol online and offline.

At times, it feels little has changed across much of south-east Asia since 1971 when Bruce Lee busted out of Hong Kong to global appeal in his film The Big Boss. The cultural trope of Big Bossism is entrenched through computer games, film and TV across south-east Asia – only now the battle is fought with bots and keyboards, not Kung Fu.

Shutting down ABS-CBN is not merely an echo of the Marcos dictatorship – it is a continuation of the enduring weaknesses in the Filipino state. Duterte is the most recent incarnation of the Marcos-era Big Boss, wielding the same power in a more potent and deadly fashion. And just as with Duterte, it’s possible other strongmen or authoritarians could follow.