On Sunday July 1st Mexican voters headed to the polling stations oh what has been the largest election in Mexican contemporary history: Over 3400 seats were out for grabs at local, state, and federal levels, including the president of the country and the whole Congress.
This election should also be remembered for other aspects equally pressing: Personal backbiting from all political parties, and the second one leaving 113 candidates from all political parties murdered prior to the Sunday elections. An unprecedented event yet unaddressed throughout the political campaigns by every candidate. Mexico is also has the lowest levels of faith in democracy.
An approximate of 62% of electorate turned out to vote in this past elections. While still a decent figure, it still shows that winners in recent elections have been unable to attract a significant number of the electorate in Mexico. The total of the nominal list for this 2018 election was 85, 953,712 million people; 63.45% of those turned out to cast their votes. (54, 537, 000 million people approximately) The virtual winner, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) obtained 52.96% of the votes, which mean 28, 359,567 million people elected the future president of the country, not even a third of the total nominal list. This is a result that has been present in the last 4 presidential elections and that should not be dismissed at all.
What is evident though is that this result brought to the forefront of the political agenda that Mexican voters are so fed up with the ruling class that they have decided to take a chance the only option that was left trying. This, again, should not be taken lightly, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and its candidate AMLO did not win supporters and votes because of his proposals for national policies. A large portion of the people that casted their vote for him did it as a punishment vote out of sweeping, profound frustration to the last 3 administrations.
AMLO’s victory ushers a four-year old party into the presidential seat with practically little governing experience and whose outsized leader has promised to radically and peacefully transform the country. Among his campaign promises are prevalence of the rule of law and democracy; rule with honesty and end privileges and immunities; decentralisation of ministries; fix the prices of agricultural products; deal with the energy crisis; eliminate corruption; fight insecurity and poverty; economic development controlled by the state; guaranteed jobs and access to free education to youngsters with a monthly stipend; paid apprenticeships to those currently not studying nor working; increase the pension of the elderly; guarantee 100% admission rates to university studies; and live humbly.
While on paper, these policies look certainly promising, AMLO has made seemingly contradictory statements throughout his political career and during his campaign. He has also steered clear of declaring a firm stance on many matters and avoided going into concrete ideas as to how he plans to achieve his campaign promises. While he has claimed to be in favour of transforming Mexico radically, his post-election speeches hint that he will hardly pursue a rapid and revolutionary upheaval to shock the system to the core. One of those contradictions is that whilst he has promised repeatedly that he will uproot corruption and live humbly, he has send signals he refers to everyone else but himself and his inner circle: He is backed by the multimillionaire Alfonso Romo; he postulated former mining union leader Napoléon Gómez Urrutia accused of stealing millions of pesos from workers to the Senate, and various family members of former Teacher’s Union Elba Esther Gordillo are among MORENA’s supporters.
While this is indeed a seismic change, it is still to early to brand it as the final step in the consolidation of Mexican democracy and the end of party rule as we know it, or at least the end of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). The same was argued after the elections of 2000 and 2006, and the party was able to canalise the errors of the back then incumbent administration. Secondly, MORENA as a political organisation, despite claiming it is not a political party, it resembles in every way one, and in many aspects emulates the practices of the former hegemonic PRI party: one man at the top – AMLO, and dubious, non- transparent practices to select their candidates to governmental positions. Thirdly, there is no real ideological party affiliation in Mexico – Majority of the Mexican electorate do not vote for concrete political parties ideologies, as the election of AMLO shows, they voted for him because there was nobody else they considered better to vote for. Lastly, the long-criticised clientelism, nepotism and opacity that characterised PRI for 71 years are present not only in the rest of the political organisations but in society as a whole. Many of MORENA members were previously affiliated to other political parties and decided to get on MORENA’s bandwagon in search of a governmental post they considered unattainable with their former political parties. The old authoritarian system has been preserved out of convenience and this is the main hurdle to overcome.
How will a Mexico ruled under AMLO look like? That is one of the most pressing questions in the immediate aftermath of the elections. There are still many open-ended questions as to which AMLO will govern: The pragmatist or the firebrand one. It is still up in the air whether some of the inconsistencies, incongruencies, flip flops, ironies, choice of candidates, and lack of clarity regarding his policies were an electoral tactic or a worrisome trait. It will not be until he takes office that we will be able to grasp a more granular understanding of his ruling style.
AMLO will also have to rule a country mourning over 150,000 people murdered over the last 18 years and face a tightening grip over oil pipelines by criminal organisations as well as the uncontrolled spiral of violence in the country. His administration will coincide with the increasingly fragile and deteriorated relations with the United States, and many of AMLO’s proposals to deal with security may be further tied up by Trump, especially if he is unable to curb down insecurity in the short term. The Mexican government still relies on the US intelligence data to catch criminals. Mexico’s next president needs to fully understand the motivations behind Trump’s view of Mexico. For him it is a personal issue imbued by a political electoral dynamics crucial to mobilising his base. Arguing that the strategy should be to make Trump respect Mexico is not only a Panglossian attitude but it is doomed to failure. Both leaders stand today at crossroads and they can either be partners in success or accomplices in failure.
Origin of US foreign policy: An Analytical Review
Origin of US foreign policy by Pat Paterson:An Analytical Review
After the start of the republic, the nature of the foreign policy of the US was unilateral. By the end of cold war, the President Clinton changes the traditional nature of Foreign Policy which was traditionally isolationism to ‘exceptionalism’ (to expand its overseas economic and political initiatives which were totally opposite to the traditional practices.)This manuscript is divided into four parts; each part defines us about the history of US foreign policy.
In the first 150 years of US history, the US tried to remain geopolitically isolated from its neighboring countries. In this regards the US have geopolitical advantage having the ocean boarders. US first President, once in his speech told that US should avoid making alliances that might draw them into wars, but it can interact for trade and commerce. US had the policy of unilateral outlook that makes it stand alone among the developed states like China and Russia, as it refused to ratify International treaties. US even did not ratify the CRC (The Convention on Rights of the Child). In this article the author tells us about the 4 to 5 reasons why the US did not ratify the treaties.
US have no need to adapt different international treaties because it has sufficient legal and social protections rules for its citizens. It has no need to adapt anything from outside. Also the US authorities had the fear that international government may try to force them by using these treaties. The other reason, the author tell us about why US not ratified the international treaties is that the foreign policy is the multi-faced topic, just to focus on the human rights and democracy, the nation have other interests like trade and security arrangements which is also important part of the negotiation.
The US is the only state in the world that has not ratified the ‘The Convention on Rights of the Child’ CRC. The religious and other Foreign Policy analysts reject this treaty and have a claim that it might threaten the rights of the parents, which I think is totally baseless explanation of this rejection.
The author in this article further described the four schools of thoughts regarding US foreign policy, that is based on the Foreign Policy recommendations for US citizens. They are, ‘Jeffersoniasm’ (the political doctrine and principles held by Thomas Jefferson that center around a belief in states’ rights, a strict interpretation of the federal constitution, confidence in the political capacity or sagacity of masses), ‘Hamiltonianism’ (the political ideas or doctrines associated with Alexander Hamilton, especially those stressing a strong central government and protective tariffs), ‘Jacksonianism’ (relating to Andrew Jackson, his ideas, the period of his presidency, or the political principles or social values associated with him), and ‘Wilsonianism’ (it describe a certain type of foreign policy advice. this term comes from the suggestions and proposals of the President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)).
The ‘Exceptionalism’ policy was not just like matter of consideration in the early days of US but in the 21st century it is still a point of pride for many US citizens. The ‘Exceptionalism’ group considers the philosophy of the priorities of the American first and then for the rest of the world. In this example I would like to quote the example of the ‘America First’ vision of the President Trump, this philosophy is used for protecting the values, nationalism and patriotism of Americans.In my opinion, according to this debate the US represented the common citizens of its state through its systems and policies.
The second part of this manuscript is based on the expansions of the US position during after the World Wars. According to my analysis, the US continued its strategies of unilateralism until it have the fear of another emerging super power, after the expansion of soviet.
Role of Woodrow Wilson is important here as he implement the policies of neutrality in the first World War, President Woodrow Wilson adhered to the advice to kept the US out of the European conflicts when the first 100 Americans died on the Lusitania in May 1915.He also tried to stop the conflicts among the different states, so he tried to implement a new world order that is the League of Nations. After the second world war the focus of US leaders quickly change from inward to outwards as they had the fear of soviet expansion. Its priorities of foreign policies gets changes by changing in the global world order from unipolar to bipolar (the two global super powers).After the World War 2 its focus had changed from only US national security to world stability.
Here in this part of the given article, the author tells us about the two important features of US foreign policy development that is: (1) The Federalism, and (2) the dispensation of powers among different branches of government. The first one, the federalism, is the most important but a controversial issue since the start of the US. Second element is the separation of power between the execution, legislative and judicial branches of government.
After the cold war the administration of the US is divided into four major eras of different Presidents, some are from democratic and the some are from republican. This era has dominated by globalization. After the world war, the President Clinton and President Obama have the same type of government, they used the smart power and promote multilateralism while the President Bush and President Trump used the hard power and promote unilateralism. Main focus of Donald Trump’s foreign policy may on the military rather than development or diplomacy. Trump pursues the ‘America First’ foreign policy. Trump’s doctrine is nationalism; his main focus is on the individuals of America. Trump use this philosophy of America firs for protecting their value, nationalism, and patriotism.
US hegemony in crisis, rise of China & Middle Power Coalition
The recent movement of USS Nimitz (CVN 68) via South China Sea and conducting PHOTOEX with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) Carrier Strike Groups on 6thof July as well as the cooperative exercises with the Indian Navy in the Indian Ocean showcase in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS shifting theatres of geopolitical confrontation towards Indo-Pacific. Accelerated by the current COVID pandemic, China’s aggressive posturing & the USA’s haphazard foreign policy under Donald Trump has compromised the USA’s hub & spoke model of bilateral relationships in the Indo-Pacific. Although Xi Jinping in an interview stated that the Pacific Ocean is large enough for both China and the USA to co-exist, however, 2020 has shown that the Chinese pragmatism may have been a sugarcoated lie to stall any immediate confrontation.
The establishment of US hegemony in East Asia was a long-drawn process, starting from Wanghia Treaty towards Washington Conference, 1921 & culminating in San Francisco System (Hub & Spokes architecture). One thing which is very American is that they found ways to maximize economic profits and were not interested in direct colonialization (exceptions being the Philippines and Sandwich Islands). How the USA established itself as an East Asian hegemon without colonial presence was possible because of its hub and spokes model of bilateral treaties. In the following writeup we will try to answer questions like, why & how did this system came to being? How effective was it in the Cold War Era and after the end of it? How the architecture is facing challenges?
San Francisco System (Hub & Spokes Model)
The definition of this model is best described by Victor D. Cha in his work Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. It goes “Hub & Spoke Model is defined as a set of tightly held and exclusive, one-to-one bilateral partnerships with countries in the region. Like a bicycle wheel, each of these allies and partners constituted “spokes” connected with the central hub (the United States), but with few connections between the spokes.”
The situation post second world war was a world of doubts and apprehensions. Nobody trusted Japan and were asking for reparations from the Japanese. These nations (New Zealand, Australia and many other South East Asian region) saw the way United States handled Japan too lenient. However, the policymakers very well understood that it was the only way forward and the only way to see the history not repeat itself. The United States made itself the exclusive partner of countries that were distrustful of one another, which afforded it a great deal of leeway and advantage in these relationships (example can be given of making Australia & New Zealand buy Japanese products, providing a consumer market for Japanese economic redevelopment as well as providing a vent for future normalization).
Why & How did this system came to being?
Let us take the example of Japan in the post-war period to understand the establishment of Hub & Scope architecture. The advent of the Cold War compelled the United States to think more strategically and long-term about the Japan project. In 1947, President Harry S. Truman pledged that the United States would help any nation resist communism in order to prevent its spread. His policy of containment is known as the Truman Doctrine. The institutional design choices for a relationship with Japan were wideranging & depended on the thinkers who were Douglas MacArthur, George Kennan, John Foster Dulles and Eisenhower. The only certainty was that Japan was going to play a pivotal role in USA’s East Asian Policy and containment of communism from the eastern flank.
At one end of the policy spectrum was a neutralization approach, which amounted to a protracted occupation and complete demilitarization and political neutralization of Japan. At the other end was a rearmament approach, which called for the early signing of a peace treaty and encouragement of rebuilding Japanese security capabilities such that it could balance against the emerging communist threat. Neither worked for US interests, which focused on three immediate needs—to prevent Japan from becoming a revisionist power again; to deny it to communist influence; and, not unlike its plans for Korea and Taiwan, to ensure that the United States had absolute control over Japan’s postwar disposition.
Strategic thinkers ultimately determined that the best sort of security institution to achieve these objectives was a bilateral alliance with Japan (In his memoirs, MacArthur recounts relaying the initial policy to his staff in late Aug’45: “First, destroy the military power. Punish war criminals. Build the structure of representative government. Modernize the constitution. Hold free elections. Enfranchise women. Release political prisoners. Liberate the farmers. Establish a free labor movement. Encourage a free economy. Abolish police oppression. Develop a free and responsible press. Liberalize education. Decentralize political power. Separate the church from state.”
The US foreign policy changed drastically after George F. Kennan urged that “Economic recovery should be made the prime objective of United States policy in Japan for the coming period”. However, like the USA in a steadfast manner moved towards a bilateral alliance with Japan, other East and South-East Asian countries who had faced the Japanese onslaught were against it and even criticized in different capacities any attempt by the US to bring about an alliance of these states which included Japan.
At the San Francisco Conference in September 1951 the US signed the US-Japan treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Later on, it moved to sign a Mutual Defenses Treaty with the Philippines in August 1951, the US-Republic of Korea Defense treaty with Republic of Korea in October 1953, and the US-Republic of China security treaty with China in December 1954. With these treaties the US was able to construct the Hub and Spokes System.With this USA was able to control East Asian Economic their foreign policy in general without having to invest capital, military, etc. at a similar level to the colonialists and imperialists of the 19th and early 20th century.
Network power is also sometimes operationalized as bargaining strength. A central “node” (state) with interconnections within a cluster of states & between clusters has bargaining strength granted to it solely by its position. This was where the United States sat in Asia, allowing it great leverage in negotiations with and between its Asian partners and allies. Moreover, the states in the network lacked “exit” options or the possibility to “delink.” For the period of the cold war, it was the perpetual threat of communism and in addition to it the economic benefits were plenty to even consider delinking.
End of Cold War & the contemporary world
The Neo-realist theorists had exclaimed in the 80s that Bi-polar world order of cold war is the most stable one which has ever existed. However, the collapse of USSR which no one expected suddenly formalized and was a reality. With the biggest threat of communism gone, the void of security requirement was filled with increased trade and commercial relations among the USA and its allies in East Asia. Although the USA has been enjoying the position of the hegemon all this time even after the cold war, the rise of China in many ways is challenging the position of the USA.
All this while when USA was embroiled mostly in the Middle East, China was fast becoming a large manufacturing hub. With its acceptance into the World Trade Organization, a slew of markets opened and a cycle of increasing demand -> increased manufacturing -> increasing supply -> increasing Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) -> increasing domestic consumer demand led to further increased production as well as supply. This growth was exponential & with the improved infrastructure & skilled human resource. Riding high on the developmental wave, China became more and more confident in itself. The transition in its language for defining its foreign policy can be considered a way to judged China’s confidence and intention at the same time. It transitioned from “hide your strength & bide your time” to “peaceful rise of China” and now under Xi Jinping, the four comprehensives: “comprehensively building a moderately prosperous society, comprehensively deepen reform, comprehensively implement the rule of law and comprehensively strengthen Party discipline”; In his first speech Xi Jinping also talked about ‘China dream: the great renewal of Chinese nation’.
Contrary to Western beliefs ‘the Chinese assimilation into the international supply chains, will lead to political opening up of People’s Republic of China’ and learning from the disaster of the policies that USSR’s Glasnost and Perestroika, they have quite successfully maintained the CCP’s control politically and showing a façade of private company Huawei being a good example. With everyone turning its blind eye China continued on pursuing scrupulous tactics and jeopardizing the international rules of the game be it devaluing currency or other things. By the time the world took notice of China, it was already an economic powerhouse. After the 2008 Economic crisis that his West disproportionately, saw China coming to the center stage of world politics.
Let us look at some statistics to understand what was behind China’s assertiveness and confidence. To put things into perspective (in comparison to the USA), China holds 1.1 Trillion USD somewhat equal to or more than what Japan holds. China has a nominal GDP of 14.14 Trillion USD (second only to USA), GDP (PPP) of 27.307 Trillion USD (ranking 1st). Its exports measured a whopping 2.5 Trillion USD, with USA being its largest trading partner which consumes about 19.25% of the overall exports.
Backed up with the unprecedented economic success, China has slowly yet steadily built its own sphere of influence. Till recently, a view propounded by Wang Dong was that China is employing a hedging strategy against USA. He defines hedging as “an insurance strategy that aims at reducing or minimizing risks arising from the uncertainties in the system, increasing freedom of maneuver, diversifying strategic options, and shaping the preferences of adversaries. It is a portfolio or mixed strategy that consists of both cooperative and competitive strategic instruments ranging from engagement and enmeshment, all the way up to balancing.”
It can be read in a subtle way as, China wants to reclaim its centrality and if it is not in a position to fulfil that in the near future, hedging is a way to ensure it in the long run. The Chinese have been encroaching on the US sphere of influence all the while US was busy in its costly enterprises in Middle East & Afghanistan. The Chinese have marketed CNS (Chinese Partnership Network) as the scholar Zhou Yiqi has termed it, is a circle of friends looking for prospering together in a free market promoting, multi-polar world order. Many countries even believed it, as the same author explains how, many of the members of United States’ Alliance System (UAS) have joined in the China’s “Circle of friends”.
The Chinese approach to create a clique of Economic partners, be it bilateral or multilateral, ex. ASEAN, Australia, European Union, SCO (Shanghai CO-operation Organization), BRICS, RCEP, etc. These multilateral organizations some created by Chinese participation and others have intensive trade relations with China. The Chinese learnt a lot from the United States, they initially entered multilateral forums to increase their presence and economic activities as well. In situations when it is difficult to make favorable arrangements, it starts to reach-out bilaterally with the member states, weakening the multilateral forum and making weaker states in the forum dependent on China. The best example I can think of is 17+1 dialogue, which is carved out of European Union Eastern European member countries. And in a way acting as a forum for, one, bypassing the European Union and two, influencing European Union’s functioning and decisions.
Can the Liberal Institutional World Order be saved?
The question is very obvious after looking at the facts and the obvious departure (in parts) of the USA from being the world’s policeman. It may change coming November, yet, many of the treaty allies and friends of USA have come to a reckoning that it is disastrous to entirely depend on the US for maintaining the security and status quo in the face of hyper-nationalist and overtly confident China. The concept of a middle power coalition can be worked to create a counter weight to the Chinese dominance and restructuring the UN Security Council to accommodate G4 countries can be a start. Giving teeth to Quad, countering China in ASEAN, Indo-Pacific, Africa and Europe will be a challenge that the middle powers need to take head-on if they want to save the order preemptively. In the near future, China may create a bipolar world or if not so, may well create its own East Asian order. The only thing that can stop China from dreaming of bringing the myth of Middle Kingdom into reality, is the emergence of a middle power structure, which is built in principle with the existing structures created by the USA in last 70 years, providing much needed strength to the structure.
However, change is imminent and as Henry Kissinger says “the viability of any international order depends on how eﬀectively it maintains the balance between legitimacy and power. Both are subject to evolution and change. However, when this balance is disturbed, the limiting mechanisms fail, which gives room to unbounded ambitions and unrestrained actions by some of the global actors; a reign of chaos begins, which lasts until a new order is established.”
Cha, Victor. 2016. Powerplay: The Origins of the American Alliance System in Asia. 123-124
 Ibid 127-128
Tan, See Sang. 2004. Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation: National Interests and Regional Order. M.E. Sharpe. 9.
Henry Kissinger, World Order: Reﬂections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History (London: Allen Lane, 2014)
India and Brazil Are Now the Global Worst Coronavirus Nations
India and Brazil have now overtaken the United States as the world’s worst performers at controlling the cononavirus-19 plague.
The chart of the numbers of daily new cases in India shows the daily count soaring more than in any other country except Brazil, whereas in the United States, the daily number of new cases has plateaued ever since it hit 72,278 on July 10th, three weeks ago.
Right now, the “Tot Cases/1M pop” are 14,207 in USA, 12,537 in Brazil, and only 1,229 in India; so, clearly, India has much farther yet to go on this than do either of the other worst-three Covid-19 nations.
The “Deaths/1M pop” are 473 in USA, 435 in Brazil, and only 26 in India; so, on that measure, also, India’s situation will be becoming vastly worse, whereas both USA and Brazil might have their worst behind them on this. However, because Brazil’s daily new cases seem to be exploding almost at the same rate as in India, one can reasonably expect Brazil’s 435 to rise above America’s 473, but India’s 26 will probably not (unless India’s sharp rise in cases continues for a long time). Consequently, Brazil could turn out to be the worst of all the world’s Covid-19 hells.
At the opposite end, the world’s best Covid-19 countries, as measured on “Tot Cases/1M pop,” are, in order starting with the best: Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Papua, Tanzania, Cambodia, Taiwan, Uganda, Burundi, Angola, Syria, Niger, Thailand, Burkina Faso, Chad, Yemen, China, Mozambique, Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo, Jordan, Mali, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, Benin, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Nogeria, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Cuba, Liberia, Japan, Sudan, Malaysia, and South Korea, all of which nations have fewer than 280 cases per million population and have populations that are higher than 5 million people (my cut-off-point). Some of these nations are in civil wars which cause few people to want to visit them; some aren’t much participating in international trade and therefore have little traffic with foreigners; some are terribly poor and therefore have almost no tourist industry, others might soon burst out with soaring increases in cases or deaths. But some of these countries are just doing a spectacularly outstanding job of protecting their populations.
On July 25th, I headlined “THE LANCET Praises Chinese Model for Coronavirus Policies” and listed the rates both for cases and for deaths in the world’s best-performing countries as of that date, and China was the 18th-best country on cases, and 25th-best on deaths, out of the 124 countries that had 5 million or more population. (The 91 countries which were smaller were not being counted.) Today, China still is 18th-best on cases, and 25th-best on deaths. Out of the same 124 countries, U.S. is the 3rd-worst on cases, and is the 8th-worst on deaths. On cases, Chile is the worst at 18,593, and Oman is second-to-worst at 15,473. U.S., at third-worst, is 14,185. On deaths, Belgium is the worst, at 849, and UK is 2nd-worst at 679. Spain is 3rd at 608, Italy is 4th at 581, Peru is 5th at 576, Sweden is 6th at 568, Chile is 7th at 494. And U.S. is the 8th-worst at 472. However, out of all of the bad countries, only India and Brazil are still accelerating into coronavirus-19 hell. Consequently, it might be reasonable to expect both of them to achieve ultimately 18,593 on cases, and 849 on deaths. For India, that would be, on cases, at 18,593 cases per million and a population of 1,381 million, 1,381×18,593 cases, or 25,676,933 cases. On deaths, at 849 per million of population, it would be 849×1,381 deaths, or 1,172,469 deaths. Right now, the U.S. has 4.7 million cases and 156,612 deaths. India’s population is 4.17 times larger than America’s. India is probably at the start of its ascent into this infection. The believers in herd immunity for coronavirus-19 should relocate themselves to places such as India and Brazil, for their safety, because those are the places that will have the highest immunity.
In fact, CNN on July 26th bannered “India’s PM says the country’s fight against Covid-19 has proven the world wrong” and opened their stenography from India’s Government:
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has claimed that his country’s response to the pandemic has defied global expectations.
“The way Indians came together to fight against coronavirus in the last few months, we have proved the world wrong,” Modi said Sunday, while delivering his monthly radio address to the nation.
India has the third-highest number of virus cases worldwide, with more than 1.3 million recorded instances of Covid-19 and 32,060 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University.
Modi claimed the coronavirus recovery rate was better in India than in other countries but warned that the threat of the disease remained.
“We need to remain vigilant. We have to remember that coronavirus is still as dangerous as it was in the beginning,” he added.
Is it really true that “the coronavirus recovery rate was better in India than in other countries”? In India it is 97%, and that is higher than the 94% global recovery-rate. Brazil’s is 95%. America’s is 94%. So, at least Modi didn’t lie about that. Maybe some day, America’s performance on recovery-rate will be as good as India’s is. China’s recovery-rate is likewise 94%. So, India’s healthcare system does seem to be better than average — better than China’s, better than America’s, and better than the global average, at least on this. And a little better than Brazil’s, which itself is 1% better than the global average. However, Vietnam, for example, has a 99.6% recovery-rate, and Venezuela, which is not that good but among the best-performing nations, has a 98.5% recovery-rate.
The key isn’t so much the healthcare system, as it is the public health system. And that’s quite evidently poor in all three of the worst-performing countries: India, Brazil, and U.S.
China’s new strategic positioning
While China is “narrowing” its production lines at national or international levels, a very important signal is the new relationship...
Five things you should know about disposable masks and plastic pollution
The fight against plastic pollution is being hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, as the use of disposable masks, gloves and...
The long-term threat of Armenian nationalism
According to the paradigm of realpolitik, states have no permanent friends or enemies- only interests can be permanent. This thought...
ADB Finances Largest Private Gas Power Plant to Improve Access to Energy in Bangladesh
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has signed a $200 million financing package with Reliance Bangladesh LNG and Power Limited (RBLPL)...
South Africa: COVID-19 pandemic raises the urgency of structural reforms
South Africa responded swiftly to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the sharp drop in activity adds to long-standing challenges and raises...
Commission concludes talks to secure future coronavirus vaccine for Europeans
The European Commission has concluded exploratory talks with a pharmaceutical company to purchase a potential vaccine against COVID-19. The envisaged...
WTO Fundamental to Economic Recovery and Sustainable and Inclusive Growth
Asia-Pacific business leaders from the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC), meeting virtually this week, called on the region’s Trade Ministers...
Intelligence3 days ago
Understanding the Balochistan Liberation Army: An Analysis of Emerging Trends
Americas2 days ago
India and Brazil Are Now the Global Worst Coronavirus Nations
Eastern Europe2 days ago
The Treasure Map to the Forgotten Epoch of the Iravan Khanate
Middle East3 days ago
Arab-Chinese Cooperation Forum: Crucial Decisions in Difficult Times
Southeast Asia2 days ago
ASEAN in the Emerging Indo-Pacific
Green Planet3 days ago
Tiger Conservation in South and Southeast Asia and The Indian Experience
Americas2 days ago
US hegemony in crisis, rise of China & Middle Power Coalition
Intelligence3 days ago
Cyber ASAT-Capabilities and South Asia