Connect with us

Americas

India and Brazil Are Now the Global Worst Coronavirus Nations

Published

on

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Transition 2021: How Biden is likely to approach the Middle East

Published

on

In terms of foreign policy, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden,is likely to face numerous challenges, especially when it comes to the Middle East because of the disastrous policies of the former President, Donald Trump, in the region. Even in his inauguration speech, Biden made it clear that it was going to be testing time. Some of the challenges that the new administration would be facing includethe nuclear deal with Iran, the ongoing war in Yemen, issues of human rights issues and the current deadlock between Israel and Palestine. There is some possibility that Biden’s foreign policy towards the Middle East would either be a revival of Barack Obama’s former policies or new strategies would be formulated based on the nature of the challenges faced. However, it is certain that Biden will address or undo Trump’s terrible policies in the region. 

The Biden administration’s top foreign policy agenda is the policy towards Iran. The Iran nuclear deal (2015) or JCOPA was considered to be a milestone in multilateral diplomacy that was irresponsibly abandoned by Trump in 2018. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” of sanctions against Iran aimed to please the traditional allies as they faced a common enemy in Iran. Biden has promised to return to the 2015 JCPOA agreement, and he would also discuss Iran’s nuclear program and exchange for sanctions relief. In this process, it is expected that Washington might pressure Iran to withdraw its support for regional proxies in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Moreover, the US would also seek to curb Iran’s export of precision guided missiles to her regional allies. Iran though, has already made it clear that these issues would not be discussed in the event of a renegotiated JCPOA. Furthermore, this plan may be complicated by the recent assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, which was not condemned by the White House that Iran blames on Israel. Public outrage had not even subdued at the point due to the assassination of Qasim Sulemani. Currently, the architecture of the Middle Eastern region is even more complex and challenging than it was four years ago butthe fact is that Iran cannot afford military conflict at this point when its economy is already crippling amidst the COVID-19 pandemic along with the sanctions imposed by the US.

Trump administration’s “Israel-first” approach in the region brought severe criticism at the global level. The Abraham Accord, signed in September of last year,which normalized Israel’s relations with UAE & Bahrain, is widely seen as Donald Trump’s most significant foreign policy achievement. This Accord altered the decades long regional perception that Arab-Israel peace could not be achieved without first addressing the issue of statehood for Palestinians. Biden has said that he supports more countries recognizing Israel but at the same time Israel needs to work towards genuine solutions between the two states. Moreover, the new administration at the White House will not show the same tolerance for Israel’s settler expansionism as its predecessor. However, there are certain foreign policies by the Trump administration that the new US leadership does not want to renew. The normalization of Arab-Israel relations is something that enjoys bipartisan support. And also, the shift of the US embassy to Jerusalem seems unlikely to be undone.

The US policy inthe Middle East under the new leadership will be less ideological and would be more based on fundamental principles.  These principles will greatly focus on human rights as some analysts view human rights as the core foreign policy agenda of the Biden administration. Thus, it does not seem not to be good news for the traditional allies of the US including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. There are a variety of issues in addition to the human rights issues: the KSA intervention in Yemen, arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the lingering mistrust, the jailing of activists and Jamall Khashoggi’s murder case, which are creating uncertainties between the Washington and Riyadh. Hence, KSA is going to have a very difficult time with the Biden administration. Similarly, the new administration can also be expected to take a less tolerant view towards Moscow and Ankara because of the extraterritorial activities in the Middle Eastern region.

Certainly, returning to the Iran nuclear dealofficially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action-will take a longer time to review because of the complexity of the issue and the domestic problems that the US is currently facing. There is also a possibility of a dangerous escalation without a nuclear deal due to Iran’s aims of buildingmilitary scenarios. Therefore, multilateral diplomacy is the best option for regional peace and security, which has been tried in the previous years.Even the JCPOA was a result of such diplomacy. The US ending its support to Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen might turn away the traditional allies for some time but not permanently due to the common interests in the region. Biden is also likely to alter Trump’s decision to withdraw US forces from the region as it would decrease US influence in the region. The top priority of the US administration in the Middle East would be to try and manage Iran’s problems and to maintain reasonable relations with Israel. Traditional allies of the US in the Middle East were content and supportive of Trump’s policies in the region but they view Biden, not as a President, but Vice President of the Obama Administration. Trump’s bilateral relations were often based on personal ties with the foreign leaders while Biden is expected to adopt a more multilateral approach in engaging with the allies. Still, scholars believe that there would be no fundamental change in the US foreign policy towards the Middle East, especially when it comes to protecting its vested interests in the region.

Continue Reading

Americas

Rejoining the UNHRC will be the State Department’s first diplomatic mistake

Published

on

As over the last days US Vice President Harris swore in Linda Thomas-Greenfield as the new US Ambassador to the UN, US Secretary of State Blinken announced in parallel that the US is now seeking election to the UN Human Rights Council, in an attempt to rejoin the UN system. But that’s not the right first move back at the UN that the US should be making. And that’s not what the progressive left had in mind when the real left groups put in office the new Biden Administration.

My perspective comes from having worked in the UN human rights system and as a finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech last year – but also as a progressive left voice.

The days when UN engagement defined Democrats vis-a-vis Republicans are over.

Shunning the UN has always been a Republican hallmark but backing and pouring so much funding into an old style, corrupt bureaucracy that has little to do with “diplomacy” is not what the new, awaken progressive left wants either.

Several weeks ago, I made the estimate that the 10bln dollars which the US government pours into the black hole called the UN equals the Covid relief that 16mln struggling American people could be getting now. The Biden Administration’s State Department diplomats have to remember who put them in office.

Democrat centrist diplomats have more in common with the UN in terms of ways, goals, style and world view than they do with the progressive left. Backing the UN means backing the old, corrupt ways, which the real progressive left voted to break last year.

The decision to announce the US’s goal to rejoin the UN Human Rights Council comes in the same week when President Biden finally announced his real stance on the Black Lives Matter ‘defund the police’ goals. Biden, it turns out, unsurprisingly does not support that. That’s not what the progressive left signed up for, either.

The UN institutional funding inertia by the US government does not define the Democratic Party anymore. That’s not what the left voters want. 

The left’s reasons for not embracing the UN and the UN Human Rights Council have little to do with the usual Republican ‘go it alone’ at the international stage.

Yes to diplomacy and multilateralism. No to the corrupt, faceless UN. “International diplomacy” is no longer the same thing as the UN system.

The wave that rose across American political life last year, with so many young black activists and so many people voting for the first time, signaled a big resounding No to old ways and old institutions, which have little concern for the actual needs of the people.

The new US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas-Greenfield, will have the tough job of reforming the UN, and in my opinion, even defunding the UN.

The days when love for the UN defined Democrats are certainly over. It’s time for the Biden Administration to do what it was elected for, which is to not simply go back to the same old, same old corrupt, faceless bureaucratic institutions swimming in money. This is not what we want. The progressive left voted for change and now that also includes the UN.

Continue Reading

Americas

U.S. Climate Policy Could Break the Ice with Russia

Published

on

Photo: Fiona Paton/ flickr

“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity” — Albert Einstein

Within the climate crisis lies strategic opportunity for the United States. Climate change offers the chance to earn back the good will of allies, to prepare American cities for an urgently needed increase in immigration, and to reinvent U.S.-led institutions that have gone stale. Perhaps most of all, foreign policymakers should remain cognizant of how climate action can help the U.S. navigate relations with the other great powers.

As a recent report from the Center for a New American Security details, synergy between China and Russia is more problematic for U.S. interests than the sum of the challenges that each nation poses individually. Similarly, a recent Atlantic Council publication observed that “allowing Russia to drift fully into China’s strategic embrace over the last decade will go down as the single greatest geostrategic error.” Chinese and Russian interests do currently align on defense, economics, and the degradation of the U.S.-designed world order, but the nature of their alignment does not constitute an alliance.

In characterizing the relationship, this distinction is paramount. For as long as China and Russia remain merely convenient partners, rather than ideologically kindred allies, it is possible to keep these neighbors at arm’s length. To this end, the U.S. must reorient its approach to Russia. It is the Russian perception that world politics are rigged to benefit the U.S. at Russia’s expense that has prompted its support for China.

Russia’s national interests are rooted in the desire for respect. With this in mind, Russia could pull back from synergy with China if a better opportunity to advance these interests presented itself. Ultimately, the ability of the U.S. to offer a mutually acceptable alternative will hinge on two related factors: the Arctic and NATO. Critically, the issue of climate change is central to both of these factors.

In the Arctic, rapid warming removes barriers to resource exploitation, shipping activity, and great power competition. This has drawn many non-Arctic states to the region. Yet, even with China inserting itself as a “Near-Arctic State,” Russia has expressed the need for a hierarchy of regional influence in which the interests of Arctic states are prioritized over non-Arctic states. On this, American and Russian interests align.

Russian distrust of the U.S. complicates matters, however. Arctic military assertiveness from Russia is evidence of its sensitivity to the NATO alliance. In response, U.S. military branches have been releasing strategies for Arctic-specific forward defense. Such militarism is not conducive to improving relations, securing sovereign influence, or addressing climate change. 

In order to limit undue Chinese influence in the region and stabilize its relations with Russia by securing a multilateral agreement that formalizes an Arctic hierarchy, the U.S. will need to alter its foreign policy so that Russia perceives it to be a viable partner. The alteration should be sufficient for reducing friction with Russia’s core interests, but not so extreme that liberal values or American security are put in jeopardy. Such transactional considerations should include fashioning a new climate-positive role for the U.S. in NATO. After all, the permanent physical presence of roughly 76,000 U.S. troops on the European continent not only irks Russia, but this posture is also expensive, carbon-intensive, and perhaps not even the most effective approach to conflict deterrence. 

Indeed, research has shown that rapid deployment of new forces is significantly more likely to stymie aggression. This suggests that the U.S. should reduce its troop levels in Europe by at least 75 percent while bolstering rapid deployment readiness. This would allow the U.S. to simultaneously reduce its military’s fuel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, earn the good will necessary for stronger diplomacy with Russia, and still honor its security commitment to NATO in the event of a crisis. Moreover, the U.S. could then reinvest the potential savings into both Arctic sustainability and NATO’s capacity to manage climate insecurity.

Through the establishment of a bounded Arctic order and the greening of American leadership in NATO, the U.S. can dispel Sino-Russian synergy in the region and help maintain balance between the great powers. Specifically, these actions would both politically distance China from Russia and give the Kremlin substantial reason to begin feeling more optimistic about its relations with the West. To be sure, similar measures will be necessary in other regions to fully assure balance. However, the Arctic is a natural place for the U.S. to begin this endeavor. Usefully, the themes of climate mitigation and adaptation provide a blueprint for what countering Sino-Russian synergy elsewhere ought to generally entail.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Defense9 mins ago

India – The US Promote National Defense – Security Cooperation

In recent years, the India-US bilateral relationship has been more closely bonded, especially defense-security cooperation in various fields including nuclear...

Environment2 hours ago

After steep drop in 2020, global carbon dioxide emissions have rebounded strongly

The Covid-19 crisis in 2020 triggered the largest annual drop in global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World...

EU Politics4 hours ago

EU and Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement enters into force

On 1 March 2021, the European Union-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) will enter into force. It has now...

Defense6 hours ago

India-Pakistan LOC peace

India and Pakistan have both announced to “strictly observe” the truce along the Line of Control and all other sectors...

Health & Wellness8 hours ago

COVID-19 cases rise for first time in seven weeks

After six consecutive weeks of decline, COVID-19 cases worldwide increased last week for the first time, the World Health Organization...

Human Rights10 hours ago

Russia responsible for Navalny poisoning, rights experts say

Russia is responsible for the poisoning and attempted killing of jailed opposition figure Alexei Navalny, two independent UN rights experts said on Monday, issuing an...

Terrorism12 hours ago

Despite acknowledging strict measures, Pakistan has to stay on the grey-list in FATF

President of The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), Dr. Marcus Pleyer, announced in a press conference held on 25 February...

Trending