Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Coronavirus

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1792- March - 20/03/2020

Sir Magdi Yacoub: The Egyptian Surgeon at the Heart of Organ Transplantation

 � � � �  � ­ � € � � € � €

www.majalla.com

www.majalla.com

Editorial

A Weekly Political News Magazine

www.majalla.com/eng As the coronavirus has ravaged the globe, Iran remains one of the worst effected countries. Initially, the regime attempted to downplay the virus by underreporting the number of cases and not taking necessary precautions to protect its citizens. But as reality started to set in, the regime started to report a spike in cases and many government officials were revealed to have come down with the disease.

This week’s issue of Majalla focuses on how the Iranian regime’s incompetence led to the country’s predicament and how the government is still not dealing with the problem efficiently.

Hanin Ghaddar focuses her attention on how the coronavirus crisis spilled over from Iran to its proxy states in the region, and how the health crisis is adding more pressure to the new Lebanese government.

She notes how the financial crisis in both Iran and Lebanon has made them both unfit to deal with the virus, and how many of Lebanon’s hospitals lack the resources to treat its patients. This crisis further exposed the Iranian regime’s inability to help the Shia communities in the region, something that it claims that it always strives to do.

Joseph Braude writes on the recent escalation between Tehran proxy forces and US proxy forces in Iraq, and notes how Iran is still going about business as usual despite its current health crisis at home.

Moreover, he writes how Iran has started building mass graves in Qom to bury many of those in Iran who will die as a result of the virus.

Ali El Shamy gives an overview of Iran’s complacency when dealing with the virus and how many influential figures in the country called it a hoax at first. Moreover, as the crisis became a deadly reality the Iranian regime still wouldn’t implement necessary measures to protect civilians and it is now these civilians who are suffering the most from the regime’s inaction.

2

20/03/20

Editor-in-Chief

Ghassan Charbel Editorial secretary Mostafa El-Dessouki HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd 10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG Tel : +44 207 831 8181 Fax: +44 207 831 2310

‫الوكيل اإلعالني‬ ،www.alkhaleejiah.com :‫موقع إلكتروني‬ hq@alkhaleejiah.com :‫بريد إلكتروني‬ + 9714 3 914440 :‫ دبي‬،920 000 417 : ‫من داخل اململكة‬ +44 207 404 6950 :‫ لندن‬+00764 537 331 :‫باريس‬ +966 11 441 1444 : ‫ومن مختلف الدول‬

- ‫ طريق مكة‬- ‫ حي املؤتمرات‬- ‫مرخص لها الرياض‬ ‫تقاطع التخصصى‬ +44 207 831 8181 :‫ لندن‬- 4419933 ‫ هاتف‬:‫الرياض‬

A Weekly Political News Magazine

١٨ Iran’s Corona Complacency and Conspiracy Theories

Issue 1792- March - 20/03/2020

26 How to Lose Friends and Strain Alliances

22 Science Can’t Save Us From Coronavirus Panic

Why is the UK Taking a Different

32 Approach to Coronavirus

34 The Problem With Using the Term China Virus

40

Run for a Longer Life? Just a Short Jog Might Make a Difference 3

20/03/20

36 Argentina Stares Down Yet Another Default

S

napshot

Shoppers are confronted with empty shelves at a supermarket that was raided by hoarders scared by the corona virus on March 14, 2020 in Wassenaar, The Netherlands. - Getty 4

20/03/20

5

20/03/20

S

napshot

6

20/03/20

An employee from the Istanbul Municipality disinfects Fatih Mosque ahead of evening prayers to prevent the spread of the COVID-19, coronavirus on March 14, 2020 in Istanbul, Turkey. - Getty

7

20/03/20

W

eekly news

Rich World Pumps Aid to Fight Virus The world’s wealthiest nations poured unprecedented aid into the reeling global economy on Thursday. With almost 219,000 infections and more than 8,900 deaths so far, the epidemic has stunned the world and drawn comparisons with traumatic periods such as World War Two, the 2008 financial crisis and the 1918 Spanish flu. Tourism and airlines have been particularly battered, as the world’s citizens hunker down to minimize contact and curb the spread of the flu-like COVID-19. But few sectors have been spared by a crisis threatening lengthy global recession. On markets, inves-

which had sought to take a more gradual approach to containment, was bracing for the virtual shutdown of London as underground train stations closed and schools prepared to shut their doors on Friday. Some 20,000 military personnel were on standby to help and Queen Elizabeth was due to leave Buckingham Palace in the capital for her ancient castle at Windsor. Britain has reported 104 deaths and 2,626 cases, but scientific advisers say the real number of infections may be more than 50,000.

Supermarkets in many countries were besieged with shoppers stocking up on food staples and hygiene products. Some fixed special hours for the elderly and most vulnerable.

tors have dumped assets everywhere, many switching to U.S. dollars perceived as a rare safe haven for money. Other currencies hit historic lows, with Britain’s pound teetering near its weakest since 1985. Policymakers in the United States, Europe and Asia have slashed interest rates and opened liquidity taps to try to stabilise economies left almost comatose with quarantined consumers, broken supply chains, disrupted transport and paralysed businesses.

Britain Latest to Face Lockdown As coronavirus cases ballooned in the current epicentre Europe and London became the latest major centre bracing for lockdown. Britain,

8

20/03/20

Rattled World ‘at War’ with Coronavirus as Deaths Surge in Italy, France Hundreds of millions of people faced a world turned upside down on Wednesday by unprecedented emergency measures against the coronavirus pandemic that is killing the old and vulnerable and threatening prolonged economic misery. “This is a once-in-a-hundredyear type event,” said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, warning the crisis could last six months as his nation became the latest to restrict gatherings and overseas travel. The fast-spreading disease that jumped from animals to humans in China has now infected over 212,000 people and caused 8,700 deaths in 164 nations, triggering emergency lockdowns and injections of cash unseen since World War Two. There was particular alarm in Italy, which has experienced an unusually high death rate - nearly 3,000 from 35,713 cases. It has called on student and retired doctors to help an overwhelmed health service.

On Wednesday Italy reported 475 new deaths, the biggest increase since the outbreak started and the highest one-day total posted by any na-

tion. France also reported a spike in deaths rising by 89, or 51%, to a total of 264 in 24 hours. Around the world, rich and poor alike saw lives turned upside down as events were cancelled, shops stripped, workplaces emptied, streets deserted, schools shut and travel minimized.

The United States imposed fresh sanctions on Iran on Tuesday, keeping up its economic

said the State Department is blacklisting nine entities based in South Africa, Hong Kong and China, as well as three Iranian individuals, for engaging in “significant transactions” to trade in Iranian petrochemicals. Pompeo urged Iran to free U.S. citizens it has detained as a humanitarian gesture because of coronavirus.

Iran has reported 16,169 coronavirus cases and 988 deaths in one of the worst national outbreaks outside of China, where the pandemic originated.

Africa Coronavirus Cases to Rise as Some Undetected Africa will likely see higher numbers of coronavirus cases in coming weeks because of the likelihood some are slipping through the net, the head of a regional disease control body said on Thursday. The virus has multiplied in Africa more slowly than Asia or Europe, but 34 nations on the continent have now reported a total of more than 600 cases. WHO Africa is planning to help countries set up pop-up hospitals that could be equipped with ventilators and oxygen, she added. Moeti said countries should isolate suspected and confirmed cases but without cutting off other nations.

U.S. Sanctions Iran, Seeks Release of Americans Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

pressure campaign even as it offered to help Tehran cope with the coronavirus pandemic and called on the Islamic Republic to release detained Americans. Iran is considering freeing some U.S. citizens, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said at a news conference where he made clear Washington will maintain its maximum-pressure campaign to choke off Tehran’s ability to export its oil. Pompeo on Tuesday

9

20/03/20

Sanders Reassessing Democratic U.S. Presidential Campaign After Latest Losses to Biden Bernie Sanders is reassessing his White House bid after bruising losses to Joe Biden in the latest Democratic presidential nominating contests, a senior adviser said on Wednesday, as the campaign suspended its political advertising on Facebook. Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont who less than four weeks ago appeared to have the inside track on winning the Democratic Party’s nod to take on Republican President Donald Trump in November, is facing increasing pressure to abandon his campaign as Biden has emerged as the clear front-runner. The former vice president’s dominating victories in Florida, Illinois and Arizona on Tuesday effectively closed off any viable path for Sanders, even as the coronavirus outbreak seems likely to force the candidates to remain off the campaign trail for weeks, or maybe months, to come.

C

over story

Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Coronavirus Iran Spread the Virus to the Countries It Controls and Failed at Managing the Health Crisis 10

20/03/20

The Coronavirus exposed Hezbollah and Iran, and uncovered Iran’s weaknesses and incapacity to contain a health crisis of this size.

Lebanon prepared – medically – to deal with a health crisis that would require more staff and equipment? Second, why was Iran allowed to send flights to Lebanon, thereby leading to the spread of the virus?

Many of those concerned about the Iranian flights are Hezbollah’s own community within the Shia population in Lebanon, who are more exposed to the virus coming straight to them from Iran. In addition to Hezbollah’s failure to fight corruption, implement reforms, or form a government that can save Lebanon, now the “Party of God” is allowing the Coronavirus to come to Lebanon from Iran.

Anti-government protesters in front of Lebanon›s health ministry on February 26 hold up banners in Arabic that read, «You are the coronavirus, you are the epidemic».

(Getty)

On the other hand, Lebanon defaulted on its sovereign debt a week before the virus hit Lebanon hard, and Lebanon lacks the financial resources to confront the coronavirus. It is no secret that for a while before this has become a pandemic, most of Lebanon’s hospitals were suffering from a lack of medical supplies including spare parts for the much-needed ventilators.

by Hanin Ghaddar As if it was not enough that Lebanon was facing a financial catastrophe that pushed more people to the brink of poverty. Adding to all the economic repercussions on the country, now the Coronavirus has hit Lebanon with more isolation, closure of what was left of businesses and private sector, and sent people home with very little tools to survive.

As numbers of Covid19- cases in Lebanon increase, people are grappling with two main concerns but Hassan Diab’s government doesn’t seem to be capable of answering them, or even dealing with the unfolding disasters: First, is

11

20/03/20

Add to all this the fact the Lebanese are worried about more job losses and a spike in unemployment rates as many are no longer working, due to both the financial crisis and now the Coronavirus spreading. And in return, Lebanon’s government has not started negotiating with its debtors and lenders, has not come up with a plan to counter the crisis, has not accepted an IMP program yet to bail out the country, and more significantly, has no plan whatsoever to confront the Coronavirus other than forcing people home, with no medical, social and economic aid to ease the suffering.

Until Friday March 2020 ,13, Hezbollah’s leader

C

over story

Hassan Nasrallah had said nothing. In fact, he was reportedly busy visiting Tehran and discussing ways to respond to the US presence in Iraq.

The Iranian regime and Hezbollah ignored the epidemic – which turned later into a pandemic, and until then, their priorities were on military operations – rather than the Iranian and Lebanese people’s wellbeing.

Many in Lebanon were complaining, including the Shia themselves, about the Iranian flights coming to Lebanon, but Nasrallah said nothing.

On Friday, he only asked people to stay home and self-isolate, but did not explain the Iranian flights, although many in Lebanon believed that these flights were not only bringing Lebanese back to Lebanon, but also Iranians infected with the virus to be treated at Hezbollah’s private hospitals such as Al-Rasoul Al-Aazam and Bahman. The fact that the media were not allowed to enter the airport when these flights arrived, indicated that Hezbollah was hiding something, or someone.

The problem for Hezbollah became the Shia community. The Coronavirus exposed Hezbollah and Iran, and uncovered Iran’s weaknesses and incapacity to contain a health crisis of this size.

In addition to Hezbollah’s failure to fight corruption, implement reforms, or form a government that can save Lebanon, now the “Party of God” is allowing the Coronavirus to come to Lebanon from Iran.

It is still unclear how bad the health crisis is in Iran. It has become clear that Iran is hiding the real numbers, and that many Iranian officials have died because of the infection. Iran has so far refused to accept the World Health Organization to enter Iran. The regime wants the WHO and the IMF to send money and assistance, but never to step foot in Iran. One reason is the fear of access that such international organizations could have once they are allowed in, but the more significant reason is the fact the regime is afraid that its weaknesses and flaws will be exposed for everyone in the world, including the Shia constituency in the region.

But Iran has been exposed. And as it was being exposed, it still managed to get its militias to attack US presence in Iraq, either in a bid to flex its muscles and show strength in such a difficult time, or because the regime’s priorities are still fixated on the IRGC’s military operations in the region and the presence of US troops in the

12

20/03/20

An Iranian man wearing a mask walks past a mural displaying his national flag in Tehran on March 2020 ,4.

(Getty)

Middle East.

In any case, Iran’s domestic crisis – financial and health, and Hezbollah’s domestic crisis – financial and heath, are going to jointly unfold into more discontent and disillusionment by the populations – mainly the Shia in the region. Iran was supposed to protect the Shia; not send them to their deaths by negligence and carelessness.

Iran was supposed to empower the Shia; not weaken them. And Iran was supposed to give the Shia the victory they paid a heavy price for; not give the death by the hundreds of thousands.

In 1982, the Iranian regime promised the Iranian people that there would be a day when Iran will no longer depend on oil. In 2020, Iran only depends on oil, and with the US sanctions on oil; the Iranian regime is struggling to keep people alive. Since 1982, Iran still depends on oil, hasn’t eliminated Israel from the world’s map, failed to give the Shia power and prosperity, and crashed

13

20/03/20

the economies of all the states it has controlled.

Iran took from Lebanon, from Iraq and from Syria. It took from the people of these countries and from its own people. In return, it only gave chaos, wars and bad economies, as it completely neglected to think of a long-term socio-economic vision for the day when it’s needed. And because of this shortcoming, Iran not only spread the Coronavirus to the countries it controls, it also failed at managing the health crisis.

When all this is over, even if the Iranian regime managed to survive this crisis, for the people of the region, Iran will always be associated with the virus that killed many of their loved ones.

And in Lebanon, Hezbollah will - one way or another - be held accountable.

Hanin Ghaddar is the inaugural Friedmann Visiting Fellow at The Washington Institute›s Geduld Program on Arab Politics.

P

olitics

Iran Weakened by U.S. in Iraq and Crippled by Corona at Home The Unconstrained Spread of the Virus Will Dwarf All Other Policy Considerations for Tehran 14

20/03/20

by Joseph Braude While much of the world has ground to a halt amid the sweeping scourge of the coronavirus, another round of escalation has erupted between Tehran and Washington out of view of the public eye. Once again, Tehran directed its proxy forces in Iraq to strike American forces in the anti-ISIS coalition.

And once again, they met strong American retaliation. Meanwhile, coronavirus is sweeping across Iran, with numerous sources indicating the true toll of the illness could be anywhere from two to five times greater than official numbers suggest.

ONE WEEK, TWO ROUNDS OF ESCALATION Within the space of one week, Tehran’s proxy forces initiated two rounds of combat with Coalition forces in Iraq. The first came on March 11, when three Coalition troops were killed in a rocket attack on Iraq’s Camp Taji base. That day, an OIR spokesman confirmed that “more than 15 small rockets impacted Iraq’s Camp Taji base hosting Coalition troops” and announced that Coalition forces were investigating the identity of the perpetrators. Soon afterward, Secretary Pompeo issued a stern warning of what was to come, tweeting that “Today’s deadly attack on Iraq’s Camp Taji military base will not be tolerated. [UK Foreign Secretary] Dominic Raab and I agree – those responsible must be held accountable.”

A picture taken on March 2020 ,13 shows a crater and destruction at the airport in the Iraqi shrine city of Karbala, in one of the areas targeted by US military air strikes against a pro-Iranian group in Iraq following the deaths of two Americans and a Briton in a rocket attack the previous night on a US base in Taji. (Getty)

Pompeo’s remarks presaged an American reprisal targeting Kataib Hizballah, the Iran-directed militia responsible for the attack. On March 13, CENTCOM confirmed a series of airstrikes targeting five Kataib Hizballah bases across Iraq in a statement, saying, “We have effectively destroyed these facilities and expect that they no longer contain the type of advanced Iranian-supplied weapons that were used in the K[ataib] H[izballah] attacks.”

Despite having suffered several losses to no clear purpose, Iran directed its proxies to strike American forces a second time in the same week. And so on March 14, Kataib Hizballah wounded three American troops and several Iraqi soldiers in a second major rocket attack targeting Camp Taji, north of Baghdad.

Somewhat unusually, both American Secretaries of State and Defense addressed the attack immediately,

15

20/03/20

Despite having suffered several losses to no clear purpose, Iran directed its proxies to strike American forces a second time in the same week. with Defense Secretary Esper promising to “take any action necessary to protect our forces” while Pompeo declared, These actions will not be tolerated and the groups responsible must be held accountable by the Government of Iraq.”

CASCADING STRESS AT HOME While Tehran’s foreign policy seemingly continues on auto-pilot, the stresses of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak and the looming threat of complete economic collapse bode ill for Iran’s regional project. Authorities have largely given up efforts to downplay the crisis, and now acknowledge “millions” of Iranians could soon be infected. Dr Afruz Eslami, an employee of Iranian State television, warned that if the public fails to follow government guidance on quarantining and social distancing, the exponential spread of the disease could crush Iran’s already-strained medical system. If the “medical facilities are not sufficient, there will be four million cases, and 3.5 million people will die,” she said.

As of this moment, unofficial sources indicate that over 32,000 Iranians have been hospitalized for the virus and over 1,300 have died, roughly double the official numbers. Meanwhile, satellite images published earlier this week indicate that authorities have begun digging mass graves in Qom, widely believed to be the center of the outbreak in Iran. Dr. Rick Brennan, a senior official with the WHO, recently stated, “The number of cases reported could represent only about a fifth of the real numbers. The reason was that testing, as is the case even in some wealthy European countries, was restricted to severe cases.” As in the rest of the international community, Iran’s saga with the coronavirus is far from over. While much remains unclear, if the virus continues its unconstrained spread in Iran, it is all but certain to dwarf all other policy considerations for Tehran.

P

olitics

Iran’s Corona Complacency and Conspiracy Theories How Iran Have Falsely Claimed that the Virus is an American Bioweapon

by Ali El Shamy Earlier this month, a video circulated around social media showing a man licking the shrine of Ali ibn Musa Al-Reza stating that he would “eat the coronavirus� thereby ensuring that visitors

of the shrine would have nothing to fear when they come during a pilgrimage. Furthermore, popular Iranian figures, such as traditional medicine physician Hossein Ravazadeh was defiant against the coronavirus outbreak telling people to live their lives normally and to

16

20/03/20

continue visiting holy shrines in order to “show everybody that the coronavirus is nothing but stories”. He believed that foreign agents were “attempting” to make Iranians abandon their religious practices. Although these two men do not have any governing authorities, figures from the Iranian regime were also complacent with the outbreak. Just one day before contracting the virus, Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi said that Iran would not be enforcing any quarantines as those “belonged to the stone age”. Complacency has hit Iran hard; as of the writing of this article there are 16,169 cases of coronavirus in Iran and 988 deaths as a result of the virus. While Iran was initially stringent on measures to contain the virus, it has thus far closed all schools and universities, banned officials from travelling abroad and called off sporting events. It should be noted, however, that in the run up to the global pandemic, the Iranian regime and its media outlets were propagating conspiracy theories which stated that the coronavirus may have been an engineered bioweapon made by the US. While scientists and medical experts around the world have refuted the conspiracy theory, Iran’s propaganda echo chambers still insisted that the virus was a manufactured weapon.

One of the reasons why so many conspiracy theories have been circulating is because scientists still do not know the exact origin of the virus. filmed in Wuhan, but rather in Palau and the woman was a Chinese influencer who was being filmed eating some of the more bizarre delicacies offered in some restaurants in Palau. Another conspiracy theory is that the virus shows strands similar to HIV, thereby implying that scientists took a strand of HIV and made a more contagious and deadly virus from it. The theory originated from an unpublished scientific manuscript by Indian scientists, which claimed that some insertions in the virus had “uncanny similarities to HIV”, but scientists quickly dismissed the findings in the paper stating that the insertions sited were so short that they could have come from a number of other different organisms. The scientists also voluntarily withdrew the paper just days later, saying that they did not have any intention of fuelling conspiracy theories.

DISPELLING THE MYTH Body temperature of a passenger woman wearing a mask as a precaution against the coronavirus (COVID19-), is being measured in Qom, Iran on March 2020 ,17 after the death toll in Iran from the novel coronavirus outbreak rose to 988. (Getty)

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT IRAN (AND OTHER STATES) HAVE First things first, it is necessary to dispel the BEEN SPREADING myth that the coronavirus was artificially engineered in a lab by scientists. Not only have Iranian news outlets circulated the theory, some officials in the US also made similar outlandish claims. Republican Senator Tom Cotton claimed that Chinese scientists created the virus as a bioweapon on Fox News. One of the reasons why so many conspiracy theories have been circulating is because scientists still do not know the exact origin of the virus. The virus originated in Wuhan, China, which is known for having large wet markets. The one thing that scientists do know is that the coronavirus shows similar strains to a virus that infects bats, soon afterwards a video circulated all over social media outlets showing an Asian woman eating a bat soup allegedly in Wuhan. However, it was later discovered that the video in question wasn’t

17

20/03/20

In this so-called “post-fact era”, it has become more widely accepted to gain your news from fringe news websites. With good reason, popular media outlets have grown unpopular with general audiences who rightly believe that these outlets harbour political biases that influence their reporting. While this has given people the opportunity to discover independent media outlets with little biases and report factual news, it has also made conspiracy theory outlets and foreign media propaganda wings more popular.

As a result, international news outlets associated with foreign governments have become popular around the West and the wider world. One of said outlets is Press TV an English and French outlet that is affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A report published by Press TV on February ,4

P

olitics

2020 claimed that the Wuhan virus was “likely manufactured” by the US, claiming that the American government has an alleged history of biological and chemical warfare. The report also claims that “Big Pharma” (a term used to describe American pharmaceutical companies) would be rushing a new vaccine to the markets.

It should be noted that the reporter has also made the dangerous claim that some vaccines are “potentially more dangerous than diseases they’re meant to protect against”. It should also be noted, that the article also cited the paper that claimed that the virus had strains of HIV, which was later revealed to be scientifically inaccurate.

The report concluded by saying that it is likely that the number of those infected with the virus will go down, rather than rise and, of course, that is something that hasn’t happened.

Not all conspiracy theories have originated from media outlets, for instance Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has claimed, without any evidence, that the coronavirus was a biological attack from the US aimed to target Iran and China.

Iran isn’t the only state that has been publishing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus; pro-Kremlin Russian news outlets have been spreading similar articles of misinformation.

For example, popular news outlet RT published Salami’s claims though it did go on to say that

Hossein Salami, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has claimed, without any evidence, that the coronavirus was a biological attack from the US aimed to target Iran and China.

there wasn’t evidence to support the commander’s beliefs. However, other outlets such as Topcor. ru and Katushya.org have published articles claiming that the US intentionally created the virus to sabotage the Chinese state. One claim is that the US was trying to gain an upper hand in the trade war, and therefore created this virus to disrupt an economically rising China. Another unverified claim is that the US wanted to create chaos within the Chinese state, and did so by manufacturing and spreading the coronavirus.

Similar to a the Press TV report I cited earlier, many of these outlets also state that the US was “simultaneously creating both the virus and the cure” implying that American pharmaceutical companies were staging a pandemic to sell vaccines.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO? The virus is still spreading as we speak and there’s no sign of it stopping. Inevitably, more and more of these stories will be spread, but it is

18

20/03/20

People wear face masks as a precaution against the coronavirus (COVID19-) outbreak after deaths and new confirmed cases revealed in Qom, Iran on March 2020 ,17. (Getty)

Iran isn’t the only state that has been publishing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus; pro-Kremlin Russian news outlets have been spreading similar articles of misinformation. important for people to be vigilant against fake news and always strive fact check everything when it comes to this virus. As humans, we always have this need to find the reason for phenomenon and this need is amplified when it is a phenomenon that is rapidly costing the lives of thousands of people and loved ones. However, scientists still haven’t discovered the source of the virus, and they may not ever find the exact source. For now, we need to come together as an international community to care for one another.

The world has gone through many international crises in the past, and the human race has shown the tenacity to move past them. While it might seem bleak now, this too shall pass.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Major General Hossein Salami speaks during a pro-government rally in the capital Tehran›s central Enghelab Square on November ,25 2019. (Getty)

19

20/03/20

P

olitics

The Problem With Using the Term “China Virus�

How Trump is Fuelling Anti-Asian Sentiment Amidst the Coronavirus Pandemic

by Ali El Shamy On February 8, 2020 popular Asian tiktok user @ jefo posted a video on the platform citing the antiAsian racist content that has filled the platform ever since the coronavirus outbreak. In the video, he said that he doesn’t care if people make fun

of him because of his ethnicity but reminded people that there are people in China and Asia who were losing their lives because of the coronavirus and that it was time for the human race to stop this negativity and make the world a better place.

Unfortunately for @jefo and other Asian people around the world, the most influential man in the

20

20/03/20

A Chinese Passengers waits for check-in counter at Frankfurt Airport on March ,12 2020 in Frankfurt, Germany. (Getty)

world is known for being less than tact on his twitter page. As of the writing of this piece, Donald Trump has referred to the coronavirus as the Chinese virus four times on twitter. This sparked massive debate on social media as to whether or not Trump has any malicious intent with using such language. Some have cited that the way the president has been designating the virus is similar to how other virus are named after countries, for example German measles and Spanish flu. However, most of these designations are out-dated and are barely used today, the medical community generally refers to the German measles as Rubella for instance. Let’s face it; Trump has never been shy to use xenophobic rhetoric in his speeches and tweets in the past and considering the fact that this pandemic came in the midst of a trade war with China it should come to no surprise that Trump is using the crisis to fuel animosity towards the Chinese government. While criticism of China’s unfair trade practices are valid, Trump is not stimulating any intellectual arguments which invalidate the economic practices of the Chinese state, rather he is encouraging racist sentiment towards Chinese people. What’s worse is that ever since this pandemic began, Asian people as a whole have been facing prejudice and racist attacks and some of those attacks were physical. In a February 16 report in the Guardian, a Thai man living in London was attacked by a group of teenagers who shouted “coronavirus” at him; they subsequently gave him a broken nose and stole his headphones. On the Internet, memes have been spread making fun of Chinese people and early on during the crisis a video was circulating showing a Chinese woman supposedly sampling the delicacies of Wuhan.

The setting of the video turned out to be outside of China, but the damage was already done, as not many people are aware of the video’s true contents and therefore believe that all Chinese people have outlandish eating habits. Trump is only adding fuel to an already burning fire.

WILL TRUMP BACK DOWN FROM HIS RHETORIC? Despite the fact that the US is now in the middle of a health crisis, Trump hasn’t stopped campaigning for the election. In fact, during his visits to research labs and medical centres he was seen

21

20/03/20

Trump’s base likes it when he uses racial language, as such we can expect a lot more tweets from him referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” in the coming days. wearing MAGA hats and has used the crisis as an opportunity to garner support. Moreover, his base likes it when he uses racial language, as such we can expect a lot more tweets from him referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” in the coming days. Finally, the US, like Britain, has been slow in its response to the pandemic as such Trump is likely calling the virus “Chinese” to shift blame away from his administration’s incompetence and unto the Chinese government.

WHERE WILL WASHINGTON-BEIJING RELATIONS GO FROM HERE? The relationship between the US and China was already strained because of the trade war. Now both sides are playing a petty blame game in which they’re blaming each other for the coronavirus pandemic. Most of Trump’s tweets that contain the phrase “China virus” blame Beijing exclusively for the pandemic. In one tweet he said he made the early decision to close the borders with China a decision he claims to have saved American lives. In another he referred to the outbreak as an “onslaught of the China virus” almost painting it as an attack coming from Beijing. Undoubtedly, the Chinese government did not take kindly to the president’s tweets, as one spokesperson for the foreign ministry said that Trump is stigmatizing China at the global stage.

However, some Beijing officials aren’t making matters better, as another foreign ministry spokesperson publically stated that the US army spread the disease in China, a conspiracy theory that has long been proven to be false. As of now, it is not clear where US-China relations will go from here, but one thing is for certain: none of the sides are doing enough to cooperate in combating this global pandemic.

P

olitics

Science Can’t Save Us From Coronavirus Panic But Trump’s Information Crackdown Can Certainly Make Things Worse 22

20/03/20

by Amy Lauren Fairchild

US President Donald Trump gives a press briefing about the Coronavirus (COVID19-) alongside members of the Coronavirus Task Force in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, DC, March 2020 ,14. (Getty)

On February 24, after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the United States should prepare for widespread domestic transmission of the novel coronavirus known as COVID19-, President Donald Trump contradicted the advice on Twitter. “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” the president wrote.

Two days later, amid criticism of the president’s handling of the COVID19- crisis, the White House announced that Vice President Mike Pence would coordinate all public health messaging about the outbreak. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSNBC’s Hardball that he had not been “muzzled” but noted that he had received clearance to appear on the program.

It is easy to dismiss the Trump administration’s communications crackdown as a heavy-handed attempt to restrict the flow of information about the disease and minimize the scale of the outbreak. But it also reflects a century-old American belief that it is possible to prevent mass panic by controlling information during a rapidly evolving public health crisis.

American confidence in both science and transparency dates back to the Progressive era, the period from around 1890 through World War I, when germ theory took hold and began to transform public health, medical care, and expectations about disease control. This new confidence was, in part, justified: health departments made real progress against the threat of contagious diseases during these years. William Sedgwick, an epidemiologist of the era, summed up the sense of scientific triumph: “Before 1880 we knew nothing; after 1890 we knew it all; it was a glorious ten years.”

Openness in particular was embraced as an important tool for preventing disease-related panics. The sociologist Robert E. Park, writing in 1904, made the case for a “new method of communication” relying on the “power of facts,” which could, when disseminated, transform a frenzied mob into a trusting, compliant public. During the 1907 outbreak of bubonic plague in San Francisco, the popular press touted publishing “honest and complete records” as a means of fighting both pestilence and panic.

FREEDOM FROM FEAR By the beginning of World War I, freedom from fear was viewed as another triumph of germ theory. Despite growing public confidence in science and medicine, health officials began to see managing public anxiety during disease outbreaks as part of their job. Following the 1918 influenza pandemic, for instance, New York City Health Commissioner Royal

23

20/03/20

When the alarm bells stop ringing, funding historically dries up.

Public health officials have seen the consequences of urgency followed by loss of public attention and subsequent political neglect over the course of the twentieth century.

Copeland wrote, “My aim was to prevent panic, hysteria, mental disturbance, and thus to protect the public from the condition of mind that in itself predisposes to physical ills.”

But an outbreak inevitably involves communication and decision-making amid uncertainty and evolving evidence.

Being able to identify the cause of a disease doesn’t immediately allow health officials to answer questions about how easily it spreads, how long an infected person can sicken others, or how deadly an outbreak will be. The one certainty of infectious disease outbreaks is that information about them will change day to day, even hour to hour. In the modern era, social media amplifies the spread and power of uncertain or false information, vastly complicating the task of health officials.

Outbreak communication puts health officials on the horns of a dilemma. If they share too much information or act too swiftly to implement measures that limit people’s freedom— such as travel bans or quarantines—they will be criticized for fear-mongering. If they withhold information in order to maintain public calm, they can expect criticism for putting people’s lives at risk, particularly if a worst-case scenario subsequently unfolds.

COMMUNICATING CONFIDENCE The Trump administration is squirming in the grip of this century-old pinch. President Barack Obama’s administration was in a similar position during the 16–2014 Ebola virus outbreak. The CDC at first issued sweeping, confident statements of assurance. But the public and policymakers subsequently overreacted when the first case of Ebola virus disease was transmitted within the United States. New York and New Jersey both enacted quarantine protocols that lacked scientific merit.

What makes the Trump administration’s response to the COVID19- outbreak unique is not just communication missteps but a communications crackdown combined with concerted efforts to undermine U.S. public health institutions.

P

olitics

In 2018, the White House eliminated the National Security Council’s global health security and biodefense directorate, which the Obama administration established in the aftermath of the Ebola virus crisis. That office has been without a head for the past two years, leaving no one with significant public health experience to coordinate U.S. efforts.

The Trump administration requested a 1.3$ billion reduction for the CDC over the next ten years in its 2021 budget proposal. Although an emergency coronavirus supplement provides 8.3$ billion in funding, the CDC is receiving only 300$ million to support the Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund and 300$ million for global disease detection and emergency response.

As alarming are cuts that hobble agencies that, while not responsible for emergency preparedness and response, are key to ensuring the health and resilience of American communities. For example, the administration has proposed a 4.2$ billion dollar cut to the Administration for Children and Families and a 2.6$ billion dollar cut to the National Institutes of Health.

As of March 2020, the Trump administration had not restored funding to the CDC’s Global Health Security Agenda, a partnership of over 60 countries that work together to address contagious disease threats. The GHSA has not issued an annual report since 2018. Consistent with the legally binding 2005 International Health Regulations—originally adopted

by World Health Organization member countries in 1969 as a framework for strengthening health security in an increasingly interconnected world—the CDC initiative supported

laboratory and emergency response systems abroad. China was one of the countries threatened by inadequate funding on the part of the United States and other countries.

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

Historically, disease threats have inspired elected officials to create or fortify public health institutions. For instance, following the Draft Riots of 1863, which underscored the vulnerability of the tenement districts, and the threat of a cholera epidemic, the New York State Legislature created the Metropolitan Board of Health in 1866.

Historically, disease threats have inspired elected officials to create or fortify public health institutions. For instance, following the Draft Riots of 1863, which underscored the vulnerability of the tenement districts, and the threat of a cholera epidemic, the New York State Legislature created the Metropolitan Board of Health in 1866. This was the backbone of the nation’s first permanent municipal health department.

Its mandate was to respond swiftly to cholera outbreaks and maintain social and economic order.

When the nation faced an influenza pandemic in 1918 and 1919, demand for both disease containment and panic management ushered in a new era of public health institution building. In New York City, for example, the municipal health department substantially increased its surveillance capacity, transforming its epidemiology division from a unit that had simply counted cases into a team that was empowered to detect and respond not only to disease outbreaks but to the anxiety that accompanied them. Institution building also took the form of expanded police power, such as the ability to

24

20/03/20

Italian general, politician and patriot Giuseppe Garibaldi 1882-1807 tending to to Cholera victims, in Marseille, 1836. Postcard, 19th century. (Getty)

mandate social-distancing measures or ordinances requiring citizens to wear masks. This was true not only in New York City but around the nation.

Other institutions have been created in anticipation of outbreaks and panic. During the Korean War, CDC official Alexander Langmuir observed that the Chinese were mounting a propaganda campaign accusing the United States of biological warfare. Langmuir believed that the CDC needed to expand its abilities to investigate and respond to domestic disease outbreaks. But he capitalized on the “emotional hysteria” about the possibility of biological warfare in President Harry Truman’s administration, which he believed was “worse the higher one reached into the establishment.” He developed “a plain unvarnished statement of the potentialities of biowarfare and sneaked it through military intelligence.” In 1951, having exploited panic among officials in Washington, D.C., Langmuir secured military funds to create the CDC’s famed Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Some legitimate alarm during a period of uncertainty can facilitate public deliberation and sound decision-making. It can spur the public to listen more closely to official public health communications and to support necessary public health investments.

When the alarm bells stop ringing, funding historically dries up. Public health officials have seen the consequences of

25

20/03/20

urgency followed by loss of public attention and subsequent political neglect over the course of the twentieth century.

Examples include surging rates of sexually transmitted diseases, the emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis, and the persistence of lead poisoning in children.

The White House, unfortunately, is trapped in century-old thinking about what science looks like: it is definitive, it reassures. When it fails to do so or when inevitable uncertainty casts doubt on the administration, it becomes politically expedient to cast doubt on science itself. No one understands the complexity of crisis communication better than Fauci, who emerged as public health’s most trusted spokesperson during the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak. His integrity is not in question when he insists, as he did last month on MSNBC, that “I’ll give you the whole truth, the way I always have.” But the Trump administration’s broader political agenda amounts to a misguided effort to contain and control the inevitably messy communication of rapidly evolving evidence. Coupled with the administration’s efforts to roll back public health institutions’ capacity to prevent, respond to, and ameliorate a potential viral crisis, that agenda increases the risk of both disruptive social panic and a pandemic with unpredictable consequences.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

How to Lose Friends and Strain Alliances

Washington’s Partners Aren’t Buying Its China Policy

by Michael H. Fuchs Since launching the trade war in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump has tried to corral U.S. allies into joining a wider struggle against China. So far, few countries are willing to follow Trump’s lead.

In January, the United Kingdom announced its decision to allow the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei to build part of its 5G wireless network—an investment that U.S. officials fear poses a security threat. The U.S. president was reportedly “apoplectic” in a phone call with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

Weeks later, at the annual Munich Security Conference, U.S.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that when it comes to China, “we are asking our friends to choose.” But observers at the conference noted that Washington’s warnings about China fell on “deaf ears” and that the United States and Europe were “speaking a completely different language” regarding the rising Asian superpower.

These recent disagreements have brought into stark relief an inconvenient reality at the center of the growing competition between the United States and China: no U.S. policy toward China is likely to succeed without the cooperation of allies and partners, but getting those countries on board requires finesse and clear thinking, not bullying coercion.

China does pose a genuine threat to many U.S. interests—to

26

06/03/20

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is welcomed by Britain›s Prime Minister Boris Johnson as they meet at Downing Street on January 2020 ,30 in London, United Kingdom. (Getty)

the United States’ economic prosperity, to its security, and to democratic values in the United States and around the world— and a deepening bipartisan consensus in the United States holds that a “tough” policy toward Beijing is necessary. But the United States has so far failed to convince allies of the problem’s urgency, and that disconnect undermines both Washington’s alliances and the effectiveness of its China policy. Trump has exacerbated the problem with counterproductive policies and a lack of clear strategic direction. But that dynamic existed before Trump took office and will remain after he leaves, unless the United States adopts a more coherent, realistic China policy and accepts that not all allies share Washington’s perspective on China.

Sometimes, on issues that concern the United States—such as the launch of the AIIB—it might be more effective to engage with Beijing rather than to oppose China outright.

TRUMP’S BLUSTER

considering following the British example and choosing the other side. Huawei, which boasts the most advanced and market-ready 5G technology, claims that its equipment supports two-thirds of the world’s commercial 5G networks. With good reason, U.S. officials worry that China can use this 5G infrastructure to collect data, spy, and undermine the national security of other countries.

As a result, the Trump administration views Huawei as a national security threat. Washington has barred the company from U.S. markets and pushes allies to keep it out of their 5G networks. Vice President Mike Pence made this policy clear in a 2019 speech on China: “We’ve urged our allies around the world to build secure 5G networks that don’t give Beijing control of our most sensitive infrastructure and data.” The Trump administration even threatened the United Kingdom, suggesting that Washington would curtail intelligence cooperation with London and that allowing Huawei into the British market could endanger the prospects of a U.S.-British trade deal. Despite this pressure, the United Kingdom decided to permit Huawei to help build the country’s 5G network—revealing by doing so just how differently London and Washington understand the threat of China.

With Huawei already embedded in markets around the world, and other U.S. allies poised to make their decisions about the company, the Trump administration seems to have taken a counterproductive stand on an issue it cannot win. If Huawei presents a genuine threat, then the United States has failed in its attempt to blunt China’s nefarious influence. But if, instead, the United Kingdom is right that the risks of Huawei are actually manageable, then the United States has further undermined its position with allies: by trying to bully the United Kingdom and others into submission, the administration gives credence to the Chinese narrative that Washington’s national security concerns are only a smokescreen for the real ambition of hurting China’s economy.

In his three years in office, Trump has hardly been afraid to disturb relations with traditional allies. He threatened France with sanctions in 2019, sparred with Denmark over Greenland last August, and taunted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “meek” in 2018. Now, as his administration plunges into what it views as a global competition with China, Trump has further isolated U.S. allies by making them “choose” between China and the United States on some issues, while attacking them outright on others.

Take Trump’s approach to trade. The United States and many of its allies share concerns about Beijing’s economic practices, including its habitual theft of intellectual property, limits on market access for foreign companies, and subsidies for stateowned enterprises. The sheer size and influence of China’s economy means that any realistic attempt to pressure China to change these practices requires a concerted multilateral effort.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, negotiated mostly during President Barack Obama’s tenure and signed in 2016, was a prime example of effective coordination between Washington and its allies: the deal would have, over the long run, pressured China’s economy to meet higher standards—including on environmental, labor, and intellectual property rights issues—or risk being disadvantaged in trading relationships with countries that make up roughly 40 percent of global GDP. But instead of embracing or even improving the deal, Trump withdrew from the agreement as soon as he became president. He set the United States back even further by instigating a unilateral trade war that has effectively harmed both China and U.S. allies, many of whom also found themselves the targets of Trump’s tariffs. U.S. allies have not only shown zero interest in following Trump’s reckless trade policies toward China but also experienced collateral damage from the standoff between the world’s two largest economies, with major disruptions to supply chains and many leaders and diplomats caught in the crossfire of an increasingly hostile U.S.-Chinese relationship.

On Huawei, Trump has employed a policy reminiscent of the Cold War, forcing allies to decide whether they are with the United States or against it. A few other European countries are

27

06/03/20

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE Trump’s foreign policy may be incoherent and his treatment of allies ham-fisted, but the difficulty in mobilizing partners to confront China predates the current administration. The obstacles

P

olitics

were evident before Trump’s election—and they will remain until the United States adopts more tailored policies to address specific challenges posed by China and finds a way to convince allies to join these efforts.

Consider the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which China founded in 2014. U.S. officials were justifiably concerned that Beijing would use the bank not only to increase its influence but also to finance projects that would undercut the labor, environmental, and transparency standards that the West had cultivated through institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. As a result, the administration of President Barack Obama attempted to convince allies not to join the bank.

Washington erred in this approach. Many Asian countries sorely needed the investment in order to build infrastructure, and the United States and its wealthy allies offered them no real alternative to the AIIB. Instead, by opposing the AIIB, Washington put these allies in a position that compelled them to choose China over the United States and that made Washington appear unreasonably aggressive to Beijing. Numerous U.S. treaty allies—including Australia, Canada, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—joined the bank. The New York Times paraphrased one Asian diplomat at the time as saying, “Washington’s hostility to the bank . . . made countries choose in China’s favor.”

In subsequent years, the United States has sparred with other countries on a host of China-related matters. Despite U.S. pressure, in 2019, Israel licensed a Chinese company to run a port near an Israeli base from where the U.S. military also operates.

Officials from African countries and institutions, including South Africa, Uganda, and the African Development Bank, have all

Huawei, which boasts the most advanced and market-ready 5G technology, claims that its equipment supports two-thirds of the world’s commercial 5G networks. With good reason, U.S. officials worry that China can use this 5G infrastructure to collect data, spy, and undermine the national security of other countries.

rejected U.S. claims that China seeks to put African countries in a “debt trap,” using its economic influence to gain key concessions.

Some U.S. allies and partners, such as Italy, are participating in China’s Belt and Road Initiative—the multitrillion-dollar effort to finance infrastructure across the world—despite U.S. skepticism about the initiative. While disagreements over China have not completely upended Washington’s relationships with its partners, they have caused significant tensions and could lead to reduced trust and cooperation. In the meantime, as allies realize that they can disregard U.S. warnings without much fallout, the United States will lose credibility when it continues to raise the alarm about the China threat.

When it comes to working together to confront Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, some of the United States’ closest allies have been backing away. After years of standing up to China, the Philippines—a U.S. ally that claims parts of the South China Sea and has had a number of tense standoffs with Beijing in recent years—has now requested to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement, which has allowed U.S. forces in the country since 1999. President Rodrigo Duterte, the erratic and dictatorial leader of the Philippines, has used U.S. criticism of his human rights abuses as an excuse to end the agreement, which could make it impossible to rotate U.S. troops through the Philippines and effectively partner with the archipelago nation on maritime security.

Of course, how China behaves—and the degree to which it threatens and bullies other countries—will help determine just how closely U.S. allies are willing to cooperate with Washington to counter China. So, too, will economic considerations shape the

28

06/03/20

People walk pass the sign of The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) on March 2016 ,9 in Beijing, China.The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank officially opened for business on 1st, Jan. 2016. (Getty)

Since launching the trade war in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump has tried to corral U.S. allies into joining a wider struggle against China. So far, few countries are willing to follow Trump’s lead.

decisions of U.S. allies. An alternative to Huawei’s technology, say, might allow the United Kingdom and others more easily to refuse Huawei’s business. But the United States has failed to supply such alternatives and to convince its allies that their best interests in these areas align with those of Washington rather than those of Beijing.

A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS If U.S. officials were to directly ask countries to choose between the United States and China, they might not like the answers.

One recent poll revealed that overwhelming majorities in many of Europe’s largest countries would remain neutral in the event of a conflict between the United States and China.

Getting allies on board with U.S. policy toward China will require more than ending Trump’s inept approach and his heavyhanded attempt to turn alliances into protection rackets. Instead, the United States must better understand its allies’ interests. It needs to recognize that it may have different interests from those of its allies in certain areas: for instance, whereas the United States has many alliances to maintain in Asia, its European allies do not have similar obligations and are not as concerned

by Chinese security threats against Asian countries. Overall, the United States seems to have overestimated how much allies trust its leadership and see their interests as inherently intertwined with those of Washington.

U.S. officials will need to prioritize those China-related issues that should most concern the United States, whether it’s the theft of intellectual property, China’s attempts to reshape multilateral

29

06/03/20

institutions, or military aggression in maritime Asia. What Chinese behavior is absolutely unacceptable, and what behavior can Washington live with? Which concerning Chinese activities require multilateral responses, and which can the United States handle with just a few allies or on its own? It’s time that U.S. policymakers begin making these hard choices.

Sometimes, on issues that concern the United States—such as the launch of the AIIB—it might be more effective to engage with Beijing rather than to oppose China outright. On other, more black-and-white issues—such as China’s gross human rights abuses against ethnic minorities—the United States must take a stand and can hope to be effective only when acting alongside partners. It is possible to prioritize and organize effectively against China, as witnessed in the recent successful effort by the United States to work with partners to elect its preferred leader as head of the World Intellectual Property Organization over China’s candidate.

There will remain some subjects, such as Huawei’s 5G network, on which the United States and its allies disagree. The United States will need to mitigate the effects of such disagreements on its alliances, as Washington and London have indicated they will attempt to do in the wake of their spat over Huawei. And if the list of disagreements grows, Washington will have to weigh the dangers posed by particular Chinese threats against the costs of a major rift with an ally.

The United States should have the humility to recognize that in the case of strong dissension between Washington and its allies, the American way won’t always be the best way. In fact, even when Washington does have the “right” approach, its strategy may be inoperable without the backing of allies.

How the United States coordinates its policy toward China with its allies will almost certainly be just as important as the relationship between Washington and Beijing alone. The sooner the United States stops imagining itself in a binary global struggle, the sooner it will be able to really address its tensions with China over everything from trade and technology to maritime aggression. Doing so requires coming up with specific solutions to specific problems—and, more often than not, a little help from one’s friends.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

Why is the UK Taking a Different Approach to Coronavirus?

Coronavirus Presents the Johnson Government with its First Big Test

by Ali El Shamy Since 2016, Boris Johnson has been campaigning in favour of taking Britain out of the European Union. He has made his position on Brexit loud and clear and was one of the leading figures in parliament to oppose Theresa May’s “soft Brexit” approach. He became Prime Minister under

the auspices of Brexit and won over the electorate with the promise of “getting Brexit done”. For all intents and purposes, Johnson was to be written down in the history books as the “Brexit Prime Minister”, the man who finally ended the UK’s almost four decade long marriage with the EU, thereby giving Britain its sovereignty back. While it is not clear if Johnson would only like to be remembered for

30

06/03/20

Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance (R) sits alongside Britain›s Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak (L) and Britain›s Prime Minister Boris Johnson (C) at a news conference addressing the government›s response to the novel coronavirus COVID19outbreak, inside 10 Downing Street in London on March ,17 2020. (Getty)

delivering on Brexit, the current global pandemic of coronavirus has given his government a real make or break test and Johnson might just go down in history as the “coronavirus Prime Minister”, rather than the “Brexit Prime Minister”. It seems almost surreal to see something other than Brexit take over headlines in the British press, but as the coronavirus made its way to the country’s shores it soon replaced Brexit as the new talk of the town and the issues such as the Brexit negotiations, the country’s relationship the EU going forward and the EU Settlement Scheme seemed to have subsided from the public’s minds, at least for the time being. One thing that has made headlines across the world is the British government’s approach with the pandemic, and the fact that it is taking far less stringent measures than the rest of Europe. This might seem strange since Europe has recently replaced China as the global epicentre of the disease and many states, most notably the US, have started enforcing travel bans both to and from Europe. Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Austria have all imposed lockdowns in some way or another, as large gatherings have been banned in those countries and most schools and universities have been closed. However, by contrast, the UK has taken a much more relaxed approach as the government opted to encourage its citizens not to travel to highly infected states, and work from home if they can. As such, the government has left it to citizens and private businesses to decided what best measure to take. Naturally, the government has been criticised for its measures, with detractors saying it isn’t doing enough to protect its citizens. Though, the government’s previous plan of developing herd immunity among the public might have seemed risky, there was scientific evidence to back it up. Even though the government appeared adamant that it would carry out its plans, it did opt for new measures just days later amid a rise in coronavirus cases.

WHAT IS HERD IMMUNITY Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) is traditionally under immense pressure during the winter months, a time when the severe cold weather impacts the health of vulnerable members of society such as the elderly, or those with chronic disease. As the UK is now approaching spring, the pressure on the NHS was supposed to decrease, but the coronavirus pandemic has changed all that. Moreover, the pandemic is now looking likely to last months, and some estimates claim that it may extend into next winter. This would undoubtedly create chaos in the NHS, as it may not have sufficient care units to treat those who contract the virus.

The government took this into account and has thus opted for a strategy of “herd immunity”, rather than the policy of containment, which is what the rest of the infected states have chosen. In layman’s terms, herd immunity is when enough members of society get the virus now, thereby gain-

31

06/03/20

Though, the British government’s previous plan of developing herd immunity among the public might have seemed risky, there was scientific evidence to back it up. ing immunity so that when another outbreak happens less people would be susceptible to the virus and the number of those infected would be lower. Herd immunity can be done in a “controlled way” where enough people in society are vaccinated for a disease that even those in society who weren’t vaccinated would be protected from it. For a highly infectious disease like the measles, where every infected person can potentially infect 10 to 15 other people, 90 to 95 per cent of the population would need to be vaccinated to ensure herd immunity whereby even the other 5 to 10 per cent who weren’t vaccinated would be protected from the virus. Herd immunity can also happen in an uncontrolled way by which enough people in the population get infected while carrying out their daily lives, and then those who were infected would gain immunity, therefore ensuring that a second outbreak of the disease would be less severe. Currently, a person who contracts coronavirus infects, on average, two or three more people, as such for herd immunity to work, then 60 per cent of the population would have to contract the virus now. This is the reason why we’ve seen sensationalist headlines these past few days stating that the government wants “40 million people to be infected with the virus”. While there is science to back the government’s previous strategy it relied heavily on too many assumptions for it to feasibly work.

TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS, TOO MANY RISKS The government assumed that those who are most vulnerable to the virus, i.e. the elderly or those with underlying health conditions, would largely avoid social contact during this period of time. As such, young and healthy individuals would make up the bulk of that 60 per cent needed to build herd immunity. However, the government assumed that most elderly individuals would just stay home, but that is a risky assumption to take especially considering that many elderly people in the UK live on their own and therefore need to go out for essential activities such as grocery shopping. Many elderly people are also lonely, so their trip to the supermarket, or to church or the local community centre is their only form of contact they have, so indirectly

P

olitics

implying to them that they would need to stay home for the coming weeks was always going to be a difficult ask.

Secondly, there are young people with chronic conditions who are susceptible to the virus, case in point those with asthma. It would be risky to assume all young people with such conditions could get time off work, especially if they work in a more labour intensive sector, which have jobs that ordinarily couldn’t be done at home. More critically, the government made the assumption that the virus could only be contracted once, so far not much is known about the virus and while most people who have recovered from the virus have not contracted it again, there still isn’t sufficient medical evidence to claim most individuals will only be infected once.

SOCIAL DISTANCING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME After harsh criticism and a spike in the number of cases to over a thousand, the government decided to change its strategy. Even though it hasn’t adopted a strategy of containment like the rest of Europe, it still took harsher measures that seem to be working. The government has now adopted a strategy of “social distancing”, it has encouraged individuals to work from home if they can, and it also encouraged people to only go out of their homes when it is necessary. As such, the government is asking people to avoid going to places where crowds would be gathered such as pubs and cinemas. Additionally, it has discouraged all but essential travel to most countries in Europe. Finally, the government is encouraging the most vulnerable individuals, the elderly, those with underlying health conditions and pregnant women, to stay indoors.

While the government did not force people to make these changes to their habits, the strategy seems to have worked thus far. Just one day after introducing the new measures, London’s normally busy underground was eerily deserted during rush hour and throughout the day. This decreased demand of the underground service has led to the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, to consider scrapping the rush hour

Just one day after introducing the new measures, London’s normally busy underground was eerily deserted during rush hour and throughout the day.

service and replace it with weekend hours all throughout the week. Moreover, some gyms and learning centres have started temporarily closing down in compliance with the government’s recommendations, and even more incredible is that popular cinema outlets such as Odeon, Vue, Cineworld and Picturehouse have closed their theatres all across the country to help the government combat the outbreak.

However, some other venues still haven’t shut down, for example most pubs and restaurants have remained open in fears that shutting down will cause them to lose their licenses.

?WILL THE GOVERNMENT DO MORE The government’s strategy is to take a balanced approach to the crisis, which will both save lives and keep the economy afloat. Nevertheless, it seems clear that businesses will suffer a huge blow during this crisis; the aviation industry in particular might crash during the coming months, as less people will be travelling. As a result, Virgin Group Chairman, Peter Norris, is going to ask the government to give airlines an emergency bailout of £7.5 billion to help them go through this crisis.

In spite of these more rigorous measures, some are asking the government to do more, and in particular close down

32

06/03/20

A view from a nearly empty underground station at rush hour, as people refrain using public transportation as a precaution against coronavirus (COVID19-) in London, United Kingdom on March 2020 ,17. (Getty)

Currently, a person who contracts coronavirus infects, on average, two or three more people, as such for herd immunity to work, then 60 per cent of the population would have to contract the virus now. the schools since children can potentially spread the disease further. The government has said that it might look into that in the future, but for now it is weary of taking such an action for two reasons: first when children stay at home, parents will have to take care of them, thereby preventing them from going into work causing the economy to suffer as a result. Second, if parents are unable to take time off work to care for the children they will have to find other people to do that, and the most likely candidates will be grandparents, i.e. the people who would be most at risk from the disease.

Only time will tell if the government will be forced to take harsher measures, but for now the balanced approach is its preferred approach.

Protesters outside Downing Street after the weekly cabinet meeting on in 2020 ,17 March London, England.

Boris Johnson held the first of his public daily briefings on the Coronavirus outbreak yesterday and told the public to avoid theatres and pubs and to work from home where )possible. (Getty

33

06/03/20

P

olitics

Argentina Stares Down Yet Another Default Can President Fernández Cure the Country’s Addiction to Debt?

by Bruno Binetti How President Alberto Fernández handles Argentina’s foreign debt crisis will define his legacy. When he took office in December 2019, the South American country was already in the midst

of an economic meltdown and dangerously close to default. Fernández took emergency measures to alleviate the crisis: he tightened existing currency controls to preserve dwindling foreign exchange reserves, partially froze pensions and salaries, and increased taxes to refill the government’s

34

06/03/20

empty coffers. His government also started negotiations with the country’s creditors with the aim of reducing and deferring debt repayment.

But even with a favorable agreement, which is far from guaranteed, Argentina faces an uncertain economic future.

Over the past two years, the value of the peso has plummeted, and the economy has suffered from a serious recession. Fernández blames his pro-market predecessor—the businessman-turned-politician Mauricio Macri—for the current situation. Indeed, foreign debt increased markedly under Macri, ballooning from 50 to 90 percent of GDP. The lion’s share of this debt belongs to the International Monetary Fund. In 2018, the IMF granted the Argentine government a 57$ billion bailout—the largest in the institution’s history—of which it paid out 44$ billion. Unfortunately, the loan did little to stop the crisis, since private investors continued to flee, skeptical of the country’s capacity to meet its debt obligations.

Sergio Massa, Alberto Fernández, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, during the opening session of the 138th period of the Argentine Congress on March ,01 2020 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. (Getty)

Fernández has pledged to reduce Argentina’s debt burden and to plow the savings into social programs—a promise he hopes will differentiate him from Macri. This situation smacks of déjà vu: Fernández was President Néstor Kirchner’s chief of staff during the 2005 debt restructuring that followed Argentina’s 2001 economic collapse and default. Back then, Kirchner forced his private creditors to accept a 70 percent haircut and severed ties with the IMF, after repaying the institution in full. Fifteen years later, Fernández promises to repeat this accomplishment and to “put Argentina back on its feet.”

DEBTORS’ DÉJÀ VU

On February 19, the IMF called Argentina’s debt burden “unsustainable” and urged bondholders to make a “meaningful contribution” toward a solution.

Argentina is in a very different position today.

After more than a decade of economic stagnation and large fiscal deficits, the government’s coffers are depleted. As a result, private creditors may be less flexible, knowing that Fernández can’t afford to go without international credit for long. The president’s hard-line rhetoric no doubt reflects his precarious political position. His government is divided into centrist and leftist factions, the latter led

by Fernández’s vice president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who is Néstor Kirchner’s widow and a former president of Argentina herself. Although she faces a string of corruption allegations, Fernández de Kirchner remains an extremely powerful figure, with allies in key positions throughout the parliament and the Fernández administration.

During her presidency, from 2007 to 2015, she took a hard line against what she described as “vulture funds”—bondholders who, by holding out and refusing to accept debt restructuring, sought to overturn the deal her husband negotiated in 2005.

Her intransigence kept the country locked out of international financial markets for a decade, but it bolstered her popularity among many at home.

As Fernández’s vice president, Fernández de Kirchner has once again staked out an extreme Invoking the 2005 restructuring process might position toward Argentina’s creditors. In a February be politically expedient for Fernández, but trying speech she gave in Cuba, Fernández de Kirchner to recreate it would be a mistake. Kirchner could criticized the IMF for supporting the Macri afford to be harsh with private creditors because government and demanded that the institution the economy he oversaw was booming: high accept a reduction on its own debt, something the commodity prices allowed him to implement IMF charter explicitly forbids. To be sure, the vice redistributive policies and maintain fiscal surpluses president’s harsh statements toward creditors might with no need for external funding. Plus, in 2005, be part of the government’s negotiating strategy, the holders of defaulted bonds hadn’t received with Fernández de Kirchner playing the “bad payment for nearly four years, which made them cop” to Fernández’s “good cop.” But even so, her more inclined to accept whatever Kirchner offered. influence over the government worries bondholders

35

06/03/20

P

olitics

and could prevent both sides from finding their way to mutually acceptable terms.

FRIENDS AND ENEMIES Restrained by his dependence on Fernández de Kirchner and her leftist camp, Fernández has revealed little about his plans to renegotiate the debt. As soon as he took office, he visited Berlin, Paris, and Rome to garner support before beginning talks with the IMF. (He even asked his compatriot Pope Francis for help in softening up Argentina’s creditors.) His government’s offer to private bondholders—which will be presented later this month—will probably ask for a reduction of between 30 and 40 percent on the debt and a postponement of payments for a few years to give the economy time to recover. Fernández also expects the IMF to reschedule Argentina’s debt payments without imposing any of the structural reform requirements that typically accompany deals of this kind.

Whether the IMF will meet this expectation remains unclear. The fund could still demand strict reforms to ensure that Argentina is able to honor any obligations that remain after a debtrestructuring deal. (Under Fernández’s current economic plan, Argentina won’t achieve a fiscal surplus until 2023 at the earliest.) But so far at least, the IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who assumed office in October 2019, has been receptive to Argentina’s requests. Like Fernández, she inherited this problem from her predecessor, Christine Lagarde. And because the failed 2018 bailout of Argentina has tarnished the IMF’s reputation, Georgieva is likely eager to put this embarrassment behind the fund. On February 19, the IMF called Argentina’s debt burden “unsustainable” and urged bondholders to make a “meaningful contribution” toward a solution. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, which strongly supported the IMF bailout, has also expressed solidarity with Fernández in bilateral meetings with Argentine officials.

But even with the support of the IMF and the United States, Argentina likely faces a long and contentious negotiation with private creditors over debt reduction and deferral—one that will probably extend beyond the government’s self-imposed deadline of late March. With mounting payments in April and May, Argentina might well enter a partial default during the negotiations. Even more worrying, vulture funds similar to those that sought to overturn the 2005 debt restructuring deal appear to be purchasing Argentine bonds and preparing for litigation in New York. As they did in the decade after 2005, U.S. court battles could keep Argentina out of financial markets even if the debt renegotiation is relatively successful.

DEEPER PROBLEMS Fernández’s problem is both economic and political. If he gives in too much to creditors’ demands for austerity, he will have fewer resources to boost public spending and stimulate Argentina’s battered economy. More important, capitulating to the country’s creditors might alienate Fernández’s

36

06/03/20

A man walks by posters against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Buenos Aires on February 2020 ,19.

(Getty)

The country’s frequent debt crises are not a cause but a consequence of structural problems: lack of trust in the peso, low competitiveness, and large fiscal deficits. The public sector is bloated and highly inefficient, and Argentina’s agricultural exports are too small to provide the hard currency the country needs to service its debt, finance its imports, and meet Argentines’ large demand for U.S. dollars. of government benefits.

powerful vice president and her leftist supporters, whom he needs to govern. At the same time, if his government insists on a hard-line stance, it could fail to reach a deal with creditors in time to prevent a default. That would further isolate Argentina from the global economy, destroy what is left of the country’s international credibility, and deter potential foreign investors.

But even a successful debt restructuring won’t solve Argentina’s long-term economic woes. The country’s frequent debt crises are not a cause but a consequence of structural problems: lack of trust in the peso, low competitiveness, and large fiscal deficits. The public sector is bloated and highly inefficient, and Argentina’s agricultural exports—the most internationally competitive area of the economy—are too small to provide the hard currency the country needs to service its debt, finance its imports, and meet Argentines’ large demand for U.S. dollars. Unfortunately, the drastic fiscal and economic adjustments needed to correct this situation would be politically and socially unpopular with those on the receiving end

37

06/03/20

Fernández has promised to boost Argentina’s exports to alleviate this imbalance. So far, however, he has resorted to old recipes that have failed many times before: protectionism, currency controls, and money printing. These might work as stopgap measures during an emergency, but they will by no means solve the Argentine economy’s fundamental problems. To reassure his creditors and his constituents, Fernández must show both the willingness and the capacity to set a more sustainable path. Three months into his term, however, he has shown neither. Argentina’s private creditors know this and have refused to accept a haircut now only to be forced into another renegotiation a few years later. The slowdown in the global economy due to coronavirus has only increased concerns over Argentina’s ability to repay.

Until Argentina finds a way to reduce its deficits and increase its international competitiveness, the country’s addiction to foreign debt will remain unchecked, and sooner or later, South America’s second-largest economy will be back where it is right now.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1792- March - 20/03/2020

Sir Magdi Yacoub: The Egyptian Surgeon at the Heart of Organ Transplantation

www.majalla.com

H

ealth

Run for a Longer Life? Just a Short Jog Might Make a Difference To Help Stave off Cardiovascular Disease, You May Not Need to Run Very Far, Very Fast--or Even Very Frequently 40

20/03/20

Start with a brisk walk, which for most people is a pace of about 3 to 4 mph. Then, try adding some short periods of running. it more frequently, either for logistical reasons or health issues such as knee arthritis, he adds. These findings might also inspire people who do brisk walking to add a few minutes of running to their exercise regimen.

THE LATEST RESEARCH ON RUNNING AND JOGGING For a study published Nov. 2019 ,4, in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers reviewed data that looked at the links between jogging or running and the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all causes. Here›s a summary of the study and their conclusions: Who: Researchers pooled findings from 14 published studies from six separate cohorts that included a total of 232,149 people.

How: In all the studies, the participants described their running habits. About %10 of the entire study population were classified as runners. Researchers tracked participants› health for five-and-a-half to 35 years. During this time, 25,951 of the participants died.

by Harvard Heart Letter Jogging and running rank among the most popular forms of exercise in the world. But how fast and how long do you need to run to reap the cardiovascular rewards of this activity? A recent study suggests that for both questions, the answer may be less than you think (see «The latest research on jogging and running»).

«The main takeaway message is that running even just once a week seems to offer some cardiovascular benefits,» says Dr. Adam Tenforde, director of the Running Medicine Program at Harvard-affiliated Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital. It›s heartening news for people who enjoy running but can›t do

41

20/03/20

Key findings: Compared with no running, any amount of running was associated with a • %30 lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease • %23 lower risk of death from cancer • %27 lower risk of death from all causes.

The conclusion: Even small «doses» of running appeared to improve health and longevity. For example, even running just once a week, for less than 50 minutes each time and at a speed below 6 mph, had a benefit, according to the authors.

RUNNERS AND THEIR HABITS Still, Dr. Tenforde is careful to point out the inherent limitations of these so-called prospective studies, which ask people about their behavior and then track their health over time. Compared with people

H

ealth

who don›t run, those who choose to run on a regular basis may have other behaviors that contribute to their heart health and longevity. Researchers try to adjust for these confounding factors, which include things such as dietary habits, body fat levels, and other physical activity. But not all the studies in this pooled analysis took all of those and other variables into account.

For example, people who run fewer days per week may be doing other aerobic exercise, such as swimming or using an elliptical machine, on other days of the week, says Dr. Tenforde. (Aerobic exercise, also known as «cardio,» boosts your heart and breathing rate.) The American College of Sports Medicine recommends that each week, adults should get at least • 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity (such as brisk walking), or • 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity (such as running), or • a combination of moderate and vigorous physical activity equivalent to the above.

Many people don›t meet these recommendations.

But doing at least a few sessions of aerobic activity per week is really important, not just for your cardiovascular health but also your overall wellbeing, says Dr. Tenforde. Even if you›ve never run before, there›s nothing inherently dangerous about starting later in life, he says. But talk to a doctor if you have heart disease or other health issues, especially if you haven›t been active recently. The Get Active Questionnaire from the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology at www.health.harvard.edu/ GAQ can help you determine if you should consult a doctor before starting or ramping up an exercise routine.

Compared with no running, any amount of running was associated with a %30 lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, %23 lower risk of death from cancer and a %27 lower risk of death from all causes.

?TREADMILL, TRACK OR TRAIL You can run almost anywhere, but different locales have varying pros and cons. The easiest choice may be to jog through your neighborhood. Wear bright or reflective clothing and stay alert to traffic and other potential hazards. And consider these options: Activity Pros Cons Tips Treadmill A good choice when the weather›s bad. You can easily keep track of your time and distance.

You›ll need to join a gym or buy a large, costly piece of equipment.

Run on an incline to increase your effort.

Track Many schools open their tracks to the public when school is not in session. The surface is flat, cushioned, and traffic-free.

You›ll probably need to drive to the track. Running in circles can be monotonous.

Each lap is about a quartermile. Stick to the outer lanes, as faster runners may be using the inner lanes for race training.

Trail Ideal if you enjoy being in nature. The air quality is likely better than running in an urban area.

42

20/03/20

May require driving to get there. Rocks or roots on trails can raise the risk of tripping or twisting an ankle.

For safety, run with a buddy. Don›t wear headphones, and be aware of your surroundings, especially in remote areas.

KEEP IT SIMPLE, START SLOW If you›re new to running, don›t worry too much about your technique. Despite what you may have heard, there›s no need to focus on striking the ground with your heel first or to coordinate your breathing with your foot strikes. Just do what feels natural, advises Dr. Tenforde.

Start with a brisk walk, which for most people is a pace of about 3 to 4 mph. Then, try adding some short periods of running. Technically, you›re running if both your feet are off the ground simultaneously during a single gait cycle or stride. Although there›s no official definition of what constitutes jogging versus running, the oft-cited cutoff is 6 mph, which translates to a -10minute mile. According to some sources, that›s the average running speed for women.

For men, the average pace is slightly faster -- around 6.7 mph, or a -9minute mile. But in the new study, even jogging (speeds of less than 6 mph) was linked to greater longevity.

43

20/03/20

Po

rt

ra

it

Sir Magdi Yacoub: The Egyptian Surgeon at the Heart of Organ Transplantation Majalla – London Magdi Yacoub was born into a Coptic Christian family on 16 November 1935 in Bilbeis, Al Sharqia, Egypt. He studied at Cairo University and qualified as a doctor in 1957. He reportedly said he decided to specialise in heart surgery after his aunt died of heart disease in her early 20›s.

He moved to Britain in 1962, where he worked in the cardiac surgery section of various leading hospitals gradually gaining experience and reputation as a cardiothoracic surgeon in equal measure. In 1968, he went to the United States where he worked at the University of Chicago as an Associate Professor for a year. Yacoub returned to London and started working as a consultant cardiothoracic surgeon at Harefield Hospital.

He continued to serve at the hospital till 2001.

During his association with the hospital, it became a pioneer and a leading institute for transplant surgery. Post-operative survival rates increased and there was a reduction in the recovery periods spent in isolation and in the financial cost of each procedure.

In December 1983, Yacoub performed the UK›s first heart and lung transplant at Harefield. He was appointed professor at the National Heart and Lung Institute in

1986, and was involved in the development of the techniques of heart and heart-lung transplantation.

Between August and October 1988 Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou was hospitalized at Harefield, which he entered at a very critical condition, and Yacoub performed an open heart triple bypass surgery on the Prime Minister, saving his life.

He was also instrumental in performing the first open heart surgery in Nigeria, when he in his capacity as a visiting professor at the University of Nigeria, joined hands with the likes of Fabian Udekwu, Nsukka and others to achieve the unique feat.

Yacoub established the largest heart and lung transplantation programme in the world where more than 2,500 transplant operations have been performed. He has also developed novel operations for a number of complex congenital heart anomalies. He was knighted for his services to medicine and surgery in 1991, awarded Fellowship of the Academy of Medical Sciences in 1998 and Fellowship of The Royal Society in 1999. A lifetime outstanding achievement award in recognition of his contribution to medicine was presented to Professor Yacoub by the Secretary of State for Health in the same year.

44

20/03/20

Having retired from performing surgery for the National Health Service in 2001 at the age of 65, Yacoub continues to act as a highprofile consultant and ambassador for the benefits of transplant surgery. He continues to operate on children through his charity, Chain of Hope.

In 2006 he briefly came out of retirement to advise on a complicated procedure which required removing a transplant heart from a patient whose own heart had recovered. The patient›s original heart had not been removed during transplant surgery nearly a decade earlier in the hope it might recover.

Yacoub has an active interest in global healthcare delivery with particular focus developing programmes in Egypt, The Gulf Region, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Jamaica. He is Founder and President of the Chain of Hope charity, treating children with correctable cardiac conditions from war-torn and developing countries and establishing training and research programmes in local cardiac units. He is also the head of the Magdi Yacoub Global Heart Foundation, co-founded with Ahmed Zewail and Ambassador Mohamed Shaker in 2008, which launched the Aswan Heart project and founded the Aswan Heart Centre the following year.