Wednesday, August 05, 2020

Ammonium nitrate: What is the chemical that has been blamed for the Beirut blast?

Prime Minister Hassan Diab has said 2,750 tonnes of the agricultural fertiliser had blown up.
Thick smoke billows from the site where a massive explosion rocked Beirut's portSource: Marwan Naamani/dpa via PA Images

LEBANESE AUTHORITIES HAVE said ammonium nitrate was the cause of yesterday’s two major explosions that ripped through Beirut’s port, killing at least 100 people and injuring thousands.

The second blast sent an enormous orange fireball into the sky, immediately followed by a shockwave that flattened the port and shattered windows across the city.

The explosions — which were heard in Nicosia, 240 kilometres away in Cyprus — were logged by seismologists, registering as the equivalent of a 3.3-magnitude earthquake.

Prime Minister Hassan Diab has said 2,750 tonnes of the agricultural fertiliser ammonium nitrate that had been stored for years in a portside warehouse had blown up, sparking “a disaster in every sense of the word”.

“What happened today will not pass without accountability,” said Diab. “Those responsible for this catastrophe will pay the price.”

So, what exactly is ammonium nitrate?

Ammonium nitrate is an odourless crystalline substance commonly used as a fertiliser that has been the cause of numerous industrial explosions over the decades.

These include notably at a Texas fertiliser plant in 2013 that killed 15 and was ruled deliberate, and another at a chemical plant in Toulouse, France in 2001 that killed 31 people but was accidental.

When combined with fuel oils, ammonium nitrate creates a potent explosive widely used by the construction industry, but also by insurgent groups like the Taliban for improvised explosives.

It was a component in the bomb at the 1995 Oklahoma City attack.

In agriculture, ammonium nitrate fertiliser is applied in granule form and quickly dissolves under moisture, allowing nitrogen – which is key to plant growth – to be released into the soil.

Lebanese soldiers search for survivors after the massive explosion in BeirutSource: Hassan Ammar via PA Images

Lebanon’s General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim said the material at the port had been confiscated years earlier and stored in the warehouse, just minutes from Beirut’s shopping and nightlife districts.

RELATED READS
05.08.20

04.08.20
At least 73 dead and 3,700 wounded in Beirut blasts


Under normal storage conditions and without very high heat, it is difficult to ignite ammonium nitrate, Jimmie Oxley, a chemistry professor at the University of Rhode Island in the US, said.

“If you look at the video (of the Beirut explosion), you saw the black smoke, you saw the red smoke, that was an incomplete reaction,” she said.

“I am assuming that there was a small explosion that instigated the reaction of the ammonium nitrate - whether that small explosion was an accident or something on purpose I haven’t heard yet.”

That’s because ammonium nitrate is an oxidiser – it intensifies combustion and allows other substances to ignite more readily, but is not itself very combustible.

For these reasons, there are generally very strict rules about where it can be stored: for example, it must be kept away from fuels and sources of heat.

In fact, many countries in the European Union require that calcium carbonate to be added to ammonium nitrate to create calcium ammonium nitrate, which is safer.

In the United States, regulations were tightened significantly after the Oklahoma City attack.

Under the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, for example, facilities that store more than 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) of ammonium nitrate are subject to inspections.

Despite its dangers, Oxley said legitimate uses of ammonium nitrate in agriculture and construction has made it indispensable.

“We wouldn’t have this modern world without explosives, and we wouldn’t feed the population we have today without ammonium nitrate fertiliser,” she said.

“We need ammonium nitrate, we just need to pay good attention to what we’re doing with it.”

Includes reporting by © – AFP 2020
‘It was a bomb of some kind’: Trump pushes conspiracy theory about Beirut explosion
QUOTING TWITCHY AND OTHER ALT RIGHT SOURCES
THAT PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE EITHER FOR THE CLAIM



Published August 4, 2020 By Matthew Chapman

At Tuesday’s White House press briefing on coronavirus, President Donald Trump opened by discussing the fireworks factory explosion in Beirut, Lebanon, saying that it “looks like a terrible attack.”

Pressed by reporters, Trump doubled down. “I met with some of our great generals,” he said. “They seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind.”

It is not clear yet exactly how the explosion happened, but the current prevailing theory was that it was an explosion of hazardous materials in a warehouse in the port. A fire, and a series of small detonations of fireworks, preceded the main explosion.Trump on the Beirut explosion: I met with some our great generals. "They seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind."
— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) August 4, 2020

He’s now winging it about the explosion, some of his “generals” said “it was a bomb of some kind."
Jesus, the PM of Lebanon has enough trouble today.
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) August 4, 2020

Trump says US generals 'feel' Beirut explosion was an 'attack', despite no evidence

Lebanese officials say they have not determined the cause of the explosion. 

Image: AP/PA Images
US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump has said American military generals have told him that they “seem to feel” the massive explosion that rocked Beirut was a “terrible attack” likely caused by a bomb.
Trump was asked why he called it an attack and not an accident, especially since Lebanese officials say they have not determined the cause of the explosion.
He told reporters at the White House: “It would seem like it, based on the explosion. I met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was.
“This was not a — some kind of a manufacturing explosion type of an event … They seem to think it was an attack. It was a bomb of some kind, yes.”
Trump offered condolences to the victims and said the United States stands ready to assist Lebanon.
“It looks like a terrible attack,” he said.
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the matter last night, referring questions back to the White House.
The cause of the blast was not immediately known, but initial reports suggested a fire had detonated a warehouse at the port.
Abbas Ibrahim, chief of Lebanese general security, said it might have been caused by highly explosive material that was confiscated from a ship some time ago and stored at the port.
Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab has said 2,750 tonnes of the agricultural fertiliser ammonium nitrate that had been stored for years in a portside warehouse had blown up, sparking “a disaster in every sense of the word”.
“What happened today will not pass without accountability,” said Diab. “Those responsible for this catastrophe will pay the price.” 
Witnesses reported seeing a strange, orange cloud like that which appears when toxic nitrogen dioxide gas is released after an explosion involving nitrates.
With reporting by © – AFP 2020
THE RIGHT WING DEFENSE OF TRUMP IS TRADITIONAL REPUBLICANISM

QUOTING FROM NATIONAL REVIEW COLUMNIST JOHN YOO

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-donald-trump-defends-presidential-power/

Trump represents something new, but not in the way his critics imagine and fear. He has not played the role of standard populists, who usually seek to remove constitutional barriers to their reform agendas. Instead, he has become, by the end of his four years, an unexpected constitutional traditionalist who has relied on theories of executive power held by his predecessors — even (gasp) Barack Obama and George W. Bush — to defend the rights of his office. He has fought off the efforts of so-described progressives, who have wanted to revolutionize our constitutional order by vesting ever more power in a permanent bureaucracy with virtually limitless authority but without democratic accountability. Whether consciously or by reacting to his own political incentives (which the Constitution itself creates), Trump has become a stouter defender of our original governing document than his critics.
Progressives have unwittingly engineered similar results across the constitutional landscape. Even though Trump lost the popular vote in the 2016 election, he legitimately won the presidency under the rules of the Electoral College, which grants each state votes based on their number of members of the House and Senate (thereby favoring smaller states and, because states award all of its electoral votes to the winner, slightly muting the popular vote). Progressives responded by seeking to abolish the Constitution’s two-centuries-old method for presidential selection. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed the Electoral College is “a shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.” In spring 2019, Democratic senators Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Kirsten Gillibrand even introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Progressive intellectual leaders and retiring Representative John Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House, want to abolish the Senate too while they are at it. When it comes to defending our Constitution and its existing institutions, progressives eagerly cede the field to Trump.
Democrats would do even more damage to the constitutional order if they were to win this November. During the primaries, they launched proposals for a Medicare-for-All health-care system that would abolish private insurance, a Green New Deal that would escalate Washington’s control over the economy, federal wealth or sales taxes that violate the income-tax amendment, and the takeover of state and local areas of governance ranging from criminal justice to consumer contracts to property. Trump could protect the Constitution merely by winning the 2020 election (again through the Electoral College), governing with the Senate, and simply stopping progressive efforts to vest even more new powers in a permanent, unaccountable bureaucracy.
Third, Trump appointed a Supreme Court that could return the Constitution to its original understanding on questions ranging from federalism to individual liberties nominated Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, conservative judges with eminent qualifications, to the Supreme Court, and has filled more than a quarter of the lower courts with young, bright, conservative intellects. 
  The liberals rightly worry that these appointments augur a sea change in constitutional law that could threaten the vast administrative state, the creeping control of Washington, D.C., over everyday life, and even Roe v. Wade’s protections for abortion. Progressives responded by attacking the Supreme Court. During the Democratic presidential primaries, senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, among others, called for expanding the Supreme Court from nine to 15 justices so that the next Democratic president could pack it with liberals. Democrats have attacked the personal records of judicial nominees and have even threatened to impeach Kavanaugh for sexual-harassment claims that the Senate fully aired during his confirmation. All of these attacks leave Trump in the position of defending the Supreme Court and the institution of judicial independence.
These battles over presidential power and the Constitution provide an important insight into the political and constitutional change of the Trump years. Political analysts have observed that Trump represents a realignment in American politics, with Republicans coming to represent a populist nationalism suspicious of globalization, foreign entanglements, and immigration, while Democrats evolve away from their (WHITE)working-class constituents to represent the cosmopolitan, educated elites in coastal cities and suburbs.
THESE SO CALLED ELITES ARE NOT THE RULING CLASS OR EVEN THE 1% THEY ARE THE BROAD PROLETARIAT, BLUE, WHITE AND PINK COLLARS, BLACK, LATINO, AND WOMEN WORKING CLASS CONSTITUENTS. IT IS ALSO AN ATTACK ON LGBTQ COMMUNITY AS COSMOPOLOTIN COASTAL ELITES
 But the deeper change that Trump’s election may have triggered is a revolution in the nature of government. At certain periods in our history, government can become ossified and overgrown with rules and bureaucracy that have separated from the wishes of the people. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR,*** and Reagan led popular movements that swept away old political orders and replaced them with new, spartan forms of government more responsive to the political times.
FDR IS HATED BY REPUBLICANS AS A STATIST AND THEY BEGAN THEIR WAR ON AMERICAN PROGRESS WAY BACK THEN AND IT HAS NEVER STOPPED. IT WAS INCLUDED AS A BACK HANDED COMPLEMENT.
Trump’s presidency may signal a similar seismic shift in government, one that extends far beyond his own personal political interests or his low polling. Today’s federal government can trace its lineage directly to the New Deal. Large, expert federal bureaucracies exercising broad powers delegated by Congress continue to govern an economy and society that have evolved far from the world of the 1930s–1960s. Even as America races into a post-industrial society, where information has become the foundation of the most valuable goods and services, it continues to govern itself with forms suited for continent-spanning GMs and IBMs and their matching labor unions.  A more spartan government, controlled by a Constitution of limited powers, may well prove more nimble and effective in the new 21st-century world than the government of the New Deal. Even while he recalls America to the society of the past, Trump may have shaken up the political system enough to allow it to adapt to the new economy of social media, networks, and AI. Presidential power provides the critical leverage to spark such significant government change, and it may be Trump’s most unlikely legacy to have preserved the constitutional authorities of his office that make such reform possible.

How Jared Kushner’s Secret Testing Plan “Went Poof Into Thin Air”

This spring, a team working under the president's son-in-law produced a plan for an aggressive, coordinated national COVID-19 response that could have brought the pandemic under control. So why did the White House spike it in favor of a shambolic 50-state response?


BY KATHERINE EBAN JULY 30, 2020 VANITY FAIR

BY TOM BRENNER/REUTERS (KUSHNER);
 EVERYTHING ELSE FROM GETTY IMAGES

On March 31, three weeks after the World Health Organization designated the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic, a DHL truck rattled up to the gray stone embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Washington, D.C., delivering precious cargo: 1 million Chinese-made diagnostic tests for COVID-19, ordered at the behest of the Trump administration.

Normally, federal government purchases come with detailed contracts, replete with acronyms and identifying codes. They require sign-off from an authorized contract officer and are typically made public in a U.S. government procurement database, under a system intended as a hedge against waste, fraud, and abuse.

This purchase did not appear in any government database. Nor was there any contract officer involved. Instead, it was documented in an invoice obtained by Vanity Fair, from a company, Cogna Technology Solutions (its own name misspelled as “Tecnology” on the bill), which noted a total order of 3.5 million tests for an amount owed of $52 million. The “client name” simply noted “WH.”

Over the next three months, the tests’ mysterious provenance would spark confusion and finger-pointing. An Abu Dhabi–based artificial intelligence company, Group 42, with close ties to the UAE’s ruling family, identified itself as the seller of 3.5 million tests and demanded payment. Its requests were routed through various divisions within Health and Human Services, whose lawyers sought in vain for a bona fide contracting officer.



During that period, more than 2.4 million Americans contracted COVID-19 and 123,331 of them died of the illness. First in New York, and then in states around the country, governors, public health experts, and frightened citizens sounded the alarm that a critical shortage of tests, and the ballooning time to get results, were crippling the U.S. pandemic response.


But the million tests, some of which were distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to several states, were of no help. According to documents obtained by Vanity Fair, they were examined in two separate government laboratories and found to be “contaminated and unusable.”

Group 42 representatives did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
The invoice for 3.5 million COVID-19 tests listed the client name as "WH."
Click to Enlarge


TEAM JARED

The secret, and legally dubious, acquisition of those test kits was the work of a task force at the White House, where Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and special adviser, has assumed a sprawling role in the pandemic response. That explains the “WH” on the invoice. While it’s unclear whether Kushner himself played a role in the acquisition, improper procurement of supplies “is a serious deal,” said a former White House staffer. “That is appropriations 101. That would be not good.”
Though Kushner’s outsized role has been widely reported, the procurement of Chinese-made test kits is being disclosed here for the first time. So is an even more extraordinary effort that Kushner oversaw: a secret project to devise a comprehensive plan that would have massively ramped up and coordinated testing for COVID-19 at the federal level.

Six months into the pandemic, the United States continues to suffer the worst outbreak of COVID-19 in the developed world. Considerable blame belongs to a federal response that offloaded responsibility for the crucial task of testing to the states. The irony is that, after assembling the team that came up with an aggressive and ambitious national testing plan, Kushner then appears to have decided, for reasons that remain murky, to scrap its proposal. Today, as governors and mayors scramble to stamp out epidemics plaguing their populations, philanthropists at the Rockefeller Foundation are working to fill the void and organize enough testing to bring the nationwide epidemic under control.

Inside the White House, over much of March and early April, Kushner’s handpicked group of young business associates, which included a former college roommate, teamed up with several top experts from the diagnostic-testing industry. Together, they hammered out the outline of a national testing strategy. The group—working night and day, using the encrypted platform WhatsApp—emerged with a detailed plan obtained by Vanity Fair.

Rather than have states fight each other for scarce diagnostic tests and limited lab capacity, the plan would have set up a system of national oversight and coordination to surge supplies, allocate test kits, lift regulatory and contractual roadblocks, and establish a widespread virus surveillance system by the fall, to help pinpoint subsequent outbreaks.

The solutions it proposed weren’t rocket science—or even comparable to the dauntingly complex undertaking of developing a new vaccine. Any national plan to address testing deficits would likely be more on the level of “replicating UPS for an industry,” said Dr. Mike Pellini, the managing partner of Section 32, a technology and health care venture capital fund. “Imagine if UPS or FedEx didn’t have infrastructure to connect all the dots. It would be complete chaos.”

The plan crafted at the White House, then, set out to connect the dots. Some of those who worked on the plan were told that it would be presented to President Trump and likely announced in the Rose Garden in early April. “I was beyond optimistic,” said one participant. “My understanding was that the final document would make its way to the president over that weekend” and would result in a “significant announcement.”

But no nationally coordinated testing strategy was ever announced. The plan, according to the participant, “just went poof into thin air.”

In a statement, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, “The premise of this article is completely false.”

This summer has illustrated in devastating detail the human and economic cost of not launching a system of national testing, which most every other industrialized nation has done. South Korea serves as the gold standard, with innovative “phone booth” and drive-through testing sites, results that get returned within 24 hours, and supportive isolation for those who test positive, including food drop-offs.

In the U.S., by contrast, cable news and front pages have been dominated by images of miles-long lines of cars in scorching Arizona and Texas heat, their drivers waiting hours for scarce diagnostic tests, and desperate Sunbelt mayors pleading in vain for federal help to expand testing capacity. In short, a “freaking debacle,” as one top public health expert put it.

We are just weeks away from dangerous and controversial school reopenings and the looming fall flu season, which the aborted plan had accounted for as a critical deadline for establishing a national system for quickly identifying new outbreaks and hot spots.
ADVERTISEMENT



Without systematic testing, “We might as well put duct tape over our eyes, cotton in our ears, and hide under the bed,” said Dr. Margaret Bourdeaux, research director for the Harvard Medical School Program in Global Public Policy.

Though President Trump likes to trumpet America’s sheer number of tests, that metric does not account for the speed of results or the response to them, said Dr. June-Ho Kim, a public health researcher at Ariadne Labs, a collaboration between Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who leads a team studying outlier countries with successful COVID-19 responses. “If you’re pedaling really hard and not going anywhere, it’s all for naught.”

With no bankable national plan, the effort to create one has fallen to a network of high-level civilians and nongovernmental organizations. The most visible effort is led by the Rockefeller Foundation and its soft-spoken president, Dr. Rajiv Shah. Focused and determinedly apolitical, Shah, 47, is now steering a widening and bipartisan coalition that includes three former FDA commissioners, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, a movie star, and 27 American cities, states, and tribal nations, all toward the far-reaching goal of getting to 30 million COVID-19 tests a week by autumn, up from the current rate of roughly 5.5 million a week.

“We know what has to be done: broad and ubiquitous testing tied to broad and effective contact tracing,” until a vaccine can be widely administered, Shah told Vanity Fair. “It takes about five minutes for anyone to understand that is the only path forward to reopening and recovering.” Without that, he said, “Our country is going to be stuck facing a series of rebound epidemics that are highly consequential in a really deleterious way.”

AN ABORTED PLAN

Countries that have successfully contained their outbreaks have empowered scientists to lead the response. But when Jared Kushner set out in March to solve the diagnostic-testing crisis, his efforts began not with public health experts but with bankers and billionaires. They saw themselves as the “A-team of people who get shit done,” as one participant proclaimed in a March Politico article.

Kushner’s brain trust included Adam Boehler, his summer college roommate who now serves as chief executive officer of the newly created U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, a government development bank that makes loans overseas. Other group members included Nat Turner, the cofounder and CEO of Flatiron Health, which works to improve cancer treatment and research.

A Morgan Stanley banker with no notable health care experience, Jason Yeung took a leave of absence to join the task force. Along the way, the group reached out for advice to billionaires, such as Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen.

The group’s collective lack of relevant experience was far from the only challenge it faced. The obstacles arrayed against any effective national testing effort included: limited laboratory capacity, supply shortages, huge discrepancies in employers’ abilities to cover testing costs for their employees, an enormous number of uninsured Americans, and a fragmented diagnostic-testing marketplace.

According to one participant, the group did not coordinate its work with a diagnostic-testing team at Health and Human Services, working under Admiral Brett Giroir, who was appointed as the nation’s “testing czar” on March 12. Kushner’s group was “in their own bubble,” said the participant. “Other agencies were in their own bubbles. The circles never overlapped.”

In the White House statement, McEnany responded, “Jared and his team worked hand-in-hand with Admiral Giroir. The public-private teams were embedded with Giroir and represented a single and united administration effort that succeeded in rapidly expanding our robust testing regime and making America number one in testing.”

As it evolved, Kushner’s group called on the help of several top diagnostic-testing experts. Together, they worked around the clock, and through a forest of WhatsApp messages. The effort of the White House team was “apolitical,” said the participant, and undertaken “with the nation’s best interests in mind.”


Kushner’s team hammered out a detailed plan, which Vanity Fair obtained. It stated, “Current challenges that need to be resolved include uneven testing capacity and supplies throughout the US, both between and within regions, significant delays in reporting results (4-11 days), and national supply chain constraints, such as PPE, swabs, and certain testing reagents.”

The plan called for the federal government to coordinate distribution of test kits, so they could be surged to heavily affected areas, and oversee a national contact-tracing infrastructure. It also proposed lifting contract restrictions on where doctors and hospitals send tests, allowing any laboratory with capacity to test any sample. It proposed a massive scale-up of antibody testing to facilitate a return to work. It called for mandating that all COVID-19 test results from any kind of testing, taken anywhere, be reported to a national repository as well as to state and local health departments.

And it proposed establishing “a national Sentinel Surveillance System” with “real-time intelligence capabilities to understand leading indicators where hot spots are arising and where the risks are high vs. where people can get back to work.”

By early April, some who worked on the plan were given the strong impression that it would soon be shared with President Trump and announced by the White House. The plan, though imperfect, was a starting point. Simply working together as a nation on it “would have put us in a fundamentally different place,” said the participant.

But the effort ran headlong into shifting sentiment at the White House. Trusting his vaunted political instincts, President Trump had been downplaying concerns about the virus and spreading misinformation about it—efforts that were soon amplified by Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures. Worried about the stock market and his reelection prospects, Trump also feared that more testing would only lead to higher case counts and more bad publicity. Meanwhile, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was reportedly sharing models with senior staff that optimistically—and erroneously, it would turn out—predicted the virus would soon fade away.

Against that background, the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor, said one public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force.

Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

That logic may have swayed Kushner. “It was very clear that Jared was ultimately the decision maker as to what [plan] was going to come out,” the expert said.


In her statement, McEnany said, “The article is completely incorrect in its assertion that any plan was stopped for political or other reasons. Our testing strategy has one goal in mind—delivering for the American people—and is being executed and modified daily to incorporate new facts on the ground.”

On April 27, Trump stepped to a podium in the Rose Garden, flanked by members of his coronavirus task force and leaders of America’s big commercial testing laboratories, Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, and finally announced a testing plan: It bore almost no resemblance to the one that had been forged in late March, and shifted the problem of diagnostic testing almost entirely to individual states.

Under the plan released that day, the federal government would act as a facilitator to help increase needed supplies and rapidly approve new versions of diagnostic-testing kits. But the bulk of the effort to operate testing sites and find available labs fell to the states.

“I had this naive optimism: This is too important to be caught in a partisan filter of how we view truth and the world,” said Rick Klausner, a Rockefeller Foundation adviser and former director of the National Cancer Institute. “But the federal government has decided to abrogate responsibility, and basically throw 50 states onto their own.”

THE SUMMER OF DISASTER

It soon became clear that ceding testing responsibility to the states was a recipe for disaster, not just in Democratic-governed areas but across the country.

In April, Phoenix, Arizona, was struggling just to provide tests to its health care workers and patients with severe symptoms of COVID-19. When Mayor Kate Gallego reached out to the federal government for help, she got an unmistakable message back: America’s fifth-largest city was on its own. “We didn’t have a sufficient number of cases to warrant” the help, Gallego told Vanity Fair.

Phoenix found itself in a catch-22, which the city’s government relations manager explained to lawyers in an April 21 email obtained by Vanity Fair through a public records request: “On a call with the county last week the Mayor was told that the region has [not] received FEMA funds related to testing because we don’t have bad numbers. The problem with that logic is that the Mayor believes we don’t have bad numbers because [of] a lack of testing.”

In June, Phoenix’s case counts began to rise dramatically. At a drive-through testing site near her house, Gallego saw miles-long lines of cars waiting in temperatures above 100 degrees. “We had people waiting 13 hours to get a test,” said Gallego. “These are people who are struggling to breathe, whose bodies ache, who have to sit in a car for hours. One man, his car had run out of gas and he had to refill while struggling to breathe.”

Gallego’s own staff members were waiting two weeks to get back test results, a period in which they could have been unwittingly transmitting the virus. “The turnaround times are way beyond what’s clinically relevant,” said Dr. James Lawler, executive director of international programs and innovation at the Global Center for Health Security at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

By July 5, Gallego was out of patience. She went on ABC News, wearing a neon-pink blouse, and politely blasted the federal response: “We’ve asked FEMA if they could come and do community-based testing here. We were told they’re moving away from that, which feels like they’re declaring victory while we’re still in crisis mode.”

Three days later, at a press conference, the White House’s testing czar, Admiral Giroir, blasted her back by name. Claiming that the federal government was already operating or contributing support for 41 Phoenix testing sites, he said: “Now, two days ago, I heard that Mayor Gallego was unhappy because there was no federal support…. It was clear to me that Phoenix was not in tune with all the things that the state were doing.”

Gallego recounted how her mother “just happened to catch this on CNN. She sent me a text message saying, ‘I don’t think they like you at the White House.’”

Despite Giroir’s defensiveness, however, Gallego ultimately prevailed in her public demand for help: Health and Human Services agreed to set up a surge testing site in Phoenix. “The effect was, we had to be in a massive crisis before they would help,” said Gallego.

And that is where the U.S. finds itself today—in a massive testing crisis. States have been forced to go their own way, amid rising case counts, skyrocketing demand for tests, and dwindling laboratory capacity. By mid-July, Quest Diagnostics announced that the average time to turn around test results was seven days.

It is obvious to experts that 50 individual states cannot effectively deploy testing resources amid vast regulatory, financial, and supply-chain obstacles. The diagnostic-testing industry is a “loosely constructed web,” said Dr. Pellini of Section 32, “and COVID-19 is a stage five hurricane.”

Dr. Lawler likened the nation’s balkanized testing infrastructure to the “early 20th century, when each city had its own electrical grid and they weren’t connected.” If one area lost power, “you couldn’t support it by diverting power from another grid.”


Experts are now warning that the U.S. testing system is on the brink of collapse. “We are at a very bad moment here,” said Margaret Bourdeaux. “We are about to lose visibility on this monster and it’s going to rampage through our whole country. This is a massive emergency.”

THE PLOT TO SAVE AMERICA

In late January, Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, went to Davos, Switzerland, and served on a panel at the World Economic Forum with climate activist Greta Thunberg. There, he had coffee with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, whom he’d known from his years working in global public health, first at the Gates Foundation and then as director of USAID, an international development agency within the U.S. government.

Shah returned to New York, and to the Rockefeller Foundation headquarters, with a clear understanding: SARS-CoV-2 was going to be the big one.

The Rockefeller Foundation, which aims to address global inequality with a $4.4 billion endowment, helped create America’s modern public health system through the early work of the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission to eradicate hookworm disease. Shah immediately began to refocus the foundation on the coming pandemic, and hired a worldwide expert, Dr. Jonathan Quick, to guide its response.

Meanwhile, he kept watching and waiting for what he assumed would be a massive federal mobilization. “The normal [strong] federal emergency response, protocols, guidance, materials, organization, and leadership were not immediately taking form,” he said. “It was pretty obvious the right things weren’t happening.”

As director of USAID from 2009 to 2015, Shah led the U.S. response to both the Haiti earthquake and the West African Ebola outbreak, and knew that the “relentless” collection of real-time metrics in a disaster was essential.

During the Ebola outbreak, which he managed from West Africa, he brought in a world-famous European epidemiologist, Hans Rosling, and President Barack Obama’s chief information officer to develop a detailed set of metrics, update them continuously in a spreadsheet, and send them daily to 25 top U.S. government officials. When it comes to outbreaks, said Shah, “If you don’t get this thing early, you’re chasing an exponentially steep curve.”

On April 21, the Rockefeller Foundation released a detailed plan for what it described as the “largest public health testing program in American history,” a massive scale-up from roughly 1 million tests a week at the time to 3 million a week by June and 30 million by the fall.

Estimating the cost at $100 billion, it proposed an all-hands-on-deck approach that would unite federal, state, and local governments; academic institutions; and the private and nonprofit sectors. Together, they would rapidly optimize laboratory capacity, create an emergency supply chain, build a 300,000-strong contact-tracing health corps, and create a real-time public data platform to guide the response and prevent reemergence.

The Rockefeller plan sought to do exactly what the federal government had chosen not to: create a national infrastructure in a record-short period of time. “Raj doesn’t do non-huge things,” said Andrew Sweet, the Rockefeller Foundation’s managing director for COVID-19 response and recovery. In a discussion with coalition members, Dr. Anthony Fauci called the Rockefeller plan “music to my ears.”

Reaching out to state and local governments, the foundation and its advisers soon became flooded with calls for help from school districts, hospital systems, and workplaces, all desperate for guidance. In regular video calls, a core advisory team that includes Shah, former FDA commissioner Mark McClellan, former National Cancer Institute director Rick Klausner, and Section 32’s Mike Pellini worked through how best to support members of its growing coalition.

Schools “keep hitting refresh on the CDC website and nothing’s changed in the last two months,” Shah told his colleagues in a video meeting in June. In the absence of trustworthy federal guidance, the Rockefeller team hashed out an array of issues: How should schools handle symptomatic and asymptomatic students? What about legal liability? What about public schools that were too poor to even afford a nurse?

(Last week, the CDC issued new guidelines that enthusiastically endorsed reopening schools and downplayed the risks, after coming under heavy pressure from President Trump to revise guidelines that he said were “very tough and expensive.”)

Through a testing-solutions group, the foundation is collaborating with city, state, and other testing programs, including those on Native American reservations, and helping to bolster them.

“They came on board and turbocharged us,” said Ann Lee, CEO of the humanitarian organization CORE (Community Organized Relief Effort), cofounded by Lee and the actor Sean Penn. CORE now operates 44 testing sites throughout the U.S., including Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles and mobile units within the Navajo Nation, which also offer food and essential supplies.

It may seem impossible for anyone but the federal government to scale up diagnostic testing one hundred-fold through a painstaking and piecemeal approach. But in private conversations, dispirited members of the White House task force urged members of the Rockefeller coalition to persist in their efforts. “Despite what we might be hearing, there is nothing being done in the administration on testing,” one of them was told on a phone call.


“It was a scary and telling moment,” the participant recounted.

A BAD GAMBLE

Despite the Rockefeller Foundation’s round-the-clock work to guide the U.S. to a nationwide testing system essential to reopening, the foundation has not yet been able to bend the most important curve of all: the Trump administration’s determined disinterest in big federal action.

On July 15, in a video call with journalists, Dr. Shah looked visibly frustrated. The next day, the Rockefeller Foundation would be releasing a follow-up report: It called on the federal government to commit $75 billion more to testing and contact tracing, work to break through the testing bottlenecks that had led to days-long delays in the delivery of test results, and vastly increase more rapid point-of-care tests.

Though speaking in a typically mild-mannered tone, Shah delivered a stark warning: “We fear the fall will be worse than the spring.” He added, putting it bluntly: “America is not near the top of countries who have handled COVID-19 effectively.”

Just three days later, news reports revealed that the Trump administration was trying to block any new funding for testing and contact tracing in the new coronavirus relief package being hammered out in Congress. As one member of the Rockefeller coalition said of the administration’s response, “We’re dealing with a schizophrenic organization. Who the hell knows what’s going on? It’s just insanity.”

On Friday, July 31, the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, which is investigating the federal response, will hold a hearing to examine the “urgent need” for a comprehensive national plan, at which Dr. Fauci, CDC director Robert Redfield, and Admiral Brett Giroir will testify. Among other things, the subcommittee is probing whether the Trump administration sought to suppress testing, in part due to Trump’s claim at his Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally in June that he ordered staff to “slow the testing down.”

The gamble that son-in-law real estate developers, or Morgan Stanley bankers liaising with billionaires, could effectively stand in for a well-coordinated federal response has proven to be dead wrong. Even the smallest of Jared Kushner’s solutions to the pandemic have entangled government agencies in confusion and raised concerns about illegality.

In the three months after the mysterious test kits arrived at the UAE embassy, diplomats there had been prodding the U.S. government to make good on the $52 million shipment. Finally, on June 26, lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services sent a cable to the embassy, directed to the company which had misspelled its own name on the original invoice: Cogna Technology Solutions LLC.

The cable stated, “HHS is unable to remit payment for the test kits in question, as the Department has not identified any warranted United States contracting officer” or any contract documents involved in the procurement. The cable cited relevant federal contract laws that would make it “unlawful for the Government to pay for the test kits in question.”

But perhaps most relevant for Americans counting on the federal government to mount an effective response to the pandemic and safeguard their health, the test kits didn’t work. As the Health and Human Services cable to the UAE embassy noted: “When the kits were delivered they were tested in accordance with standard procedures and were found to be contaminated and unusable.”

An FDA spokesperson told Vanity Fair the tests may have been rendered ineffective because of how they were stored when they were shipped from the Middle East. “The reagents should be kept cold,” the spokesperson said.

Although officials with FEMA and Health and Human Services would not acknowledge that the tests even exist, stating only that there was no official government contract for them, the UAE’s records are clear enough. As a spokesperson for the UAE embassy confirmed, “the US Government made an urgent request for additional COVID-19 test kits from the UAE government. One million test kits were delivered to the US government by April 1. An additional 2.5 million test kits were delivered to the US government by April 20.”

The tests may not have worked, in other words, but Donald Trump would have been pleased at the sheer number of them.

This article has been updated to include a statement from the White House.


Explainer: TikTok is on the block but why has Donald Trump given Microsoft 45 days to make a bid?

A September deadline looms for the blockbuster acquisition.

 5 August, 2020

Image: SIPA USA/PA Images


TEENAGERS LOVE IT and the US authorities hate it but there’s no doubting the impact that social media platform TikTok has had during the pandemic.

Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, the app had been hot property since its international rollout in 2018 but in 2020, its popularity has soared thanks to lockdown-related boredom, idle hands and, crucially, feet.

But after US President Donald Trump threatened to ban TikTok last Friday, many of its most prominent users took the weekend to say goodbye to the beloved app, home of viral lockdown dance phenomena like the Blinding Lights and Think about Things challenges.

Simultaneously, it emerged last Friday that software giant Microsoft had been engaged in talks with ByteDance for a number of weeks to buy TikTok’s American and international operation, headquartered in Los Angeles.

Why does Microsoft want to buy TikTok?

Well, it’s no secret that TikTok has been one of the undisputed winners of the pandemic.

In the first quarter of the year, the app was downloaded a whopping 315 million times across Apple and Android phones, smashing records in the process.

By May, TikTok had been downloaded 2 billion times cumulatively, with 40% of users aged between 16 and 24, an incredibly valuable market segment for any would-be buyers.

That’s a lot of precious consumer data for Microsoft to sink its teeth into to help integrate and improve its product offerings.

Having moved away from consumer products in recent years towards cloud computing and enterprise software, a takeover of TikTok would also allow Microsoft to compete directly with the likes of Facebook, Twitter and, crucially, Google-owned video giant YouTube.

But it won’t come cheap.

Its parent company, ByteDance, is currently valued at between $75 and $100 billion and TikTok itself has been price-tagged at anywhere between $5 billion and $10 billion.

So what’s Trump’s issue with TikTok?

In the past few months, Trump and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, have repeatedly painted TikTok as a threat to American national security, citing the app’s Chinese ownership and suspicions over its data processing protocols.

On 7 July, Pompeo told Fox News that the administration was considering an outright ban on the app.

This, he said, was because China’s national intelligence laws could compel TikTok’s Bejing-anchored parent company, ByteDance, to hand over user data whenever it wants.

For its part, TikTok has roundly denied ever handing American data over to the Chinese government.

In a statement released after Pompeo’s comments, the company said, “TikTok is led by an American CEO, with hundreds of employees and key leaders across safety, security, product, and public policy here in the US.



“We have no higher priority than promoting a safe and secure app experience for our users. We have never provided user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked.”

It maintains that all American data is handled and processed in the US itself.

What’s the context?

It’s worth noting that the campaign against TikTok — which, at the moment, is still based on “suspicions, not legal complaints” — is being waged against the background of a huge upsurge in anti-China sentiment in the US.

According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre, a US think-tank, 73% of Americans have an unfavourable opinion of China, a historically high reading and up 26 percentage points since 2018 alone.

It’s perhaps no surprise given the explosive language used by Trump about China and Chinese companies since his arrival on the political scene.

But it’s not just Trump and the Republicans who are at it.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has himself criticised the US president for being too soft on China in recent weeks and plenty of his party colleagues have weighed in on the TikTok debacle as well.

But US and China have been locked in a trade war for the better part of Trump’s presidency and in May, the president threatened to “cut off [America's] whole relationship” with China in order to save the US economy $500 billion.

A truce was negotiated between the two governments earlier this year but the coronavirus outbreak has done nothing to help relations.

Recently, Trump went as far as to infer that Bejing actually allowed Covid-19 to spread to damage his reelection bid.

Chinese officials have publicly stated their belief that Trump is just using rhetoric to fire up his base and that for all his bombast, the president’s ‘crackdown’ has been mostly cosmetic.

But the row over TikTok, a symptom of US political and economic enmity towards all things China at the moment, threatened to become very real last Friday with what seemed like a final threat from Trump.

“As far as TikTok is concerned,” he said, “we’re banning them from the United States.”

He added he would take action as soon as Saturday using emergency economic power or an executive order.

Can Trump actually ban TikTok?

This is a thorny issue but the short answer is that he could certainly give it a bash.

Other Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE have been on the receiving end of punitive measures from the current US administration through the Committee on Foreign Investments (CFIU) in the United States.

The committee is also notorious for ordering a Chinese company to sell its stake in gay dating app Grindr last year.

TikTok is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the CFIU, which the Trump administration could weaponise in its fight against TikTok.

The CFIU could make life extremely difficult for TikTok by sanctioning it but to actually ban the app by placing it on the US Commerce Department’s ‘entity list’ would, according to one legal expert, be “extreme, unusual, and legally dubious“.

In fact, some Trump advisors believed that the ensuing legal and political wrangle would be so messy that instead, according to The New York Times, they convinced the US president to park his plans to ban the app.

Over the weekend, the paper reported that advisors asked Trump to consider the political fallout, particularly with younger voters, if he tried to outright prohibit TikTok.

This is where Microsoft entered the frame.

So what happened over the weekend?

Parallel to Trump’s bombastic statement on Friday, it was reported in the US that Microsoft had been involved in advanced talks to purchase TikTok for a number of weeks.

Those talks reportedly stalled after the US president’s announcement but over the weekend, they started up again.

Microsoft confirmed on Sunday that “following a conversation between Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Donald J Trump, Microsoft is prepared to continue discussions to explore a purchase of TikTok in the United States”.

In a statement on the company website, Microsoft said, “Among other measures, Microsoft would ensure that all private data of TikTok’s American users is transferred to and remains in the United States.

“To the extent that any such data is currently stored or backed-up outside the United States, Microsoft would ensure that this data is deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred.”

What changed?

After being persuaded in private to pump the brakes on his plan to outlaw the app, Trump performed a very public about-turn on Monday, opening the door for the divestment of TikTok’s American business to a US company.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said TikTok would “close down on 15 September unless Microsoft or somebody else is able to buy it and work out an appropriate deal”.

“It’s got to be an American company… it’s got to be owned here,” Trump said. “We don’t want to have any problem with security.”

In a surprising twist, he said he had warned Microsoft that the US government would have to get its slice of the pie “because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don’t have any rights, unless we give it to them”.

How exactly the Trump administration plans to take its chunk of the money is unclear and the legal ramifications of the US president’s comments are still being picked over.

— Additional reporting by AFP





Short URL

Tuesday, August 04, 2020


The price of peace: Why Japan scrapped a $4.2bn US missile system

Washington and Tokyo have been allies for 60 years. Both agree they're spending too much

IEKO MIKI, Nikkei staff writer AUGUST 5, 2020 

Costly, often delayed armaments were part of the price Tokyo paid for its U.S. alliance -- a relationship which has also helped support decades of pacifism and low defense expenditures. © Reuters

TOKYO -- Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono was seething after a June 3 briefing in his office. "Why didn't you figure that out sooner?" he snapped.

Officials had just learned of a critical flaw in a U.S.-made missile defense system that would derail a multibillion-dollar defense deal.

Three years previously, Japan had decided to buy the $4.2 billion system, known as Aegis Ashore, amid a fusillade of missile launches by North Korea -- not to mention veiled threats by U.S. President Donald Trump that its allies should spend more on their defenses, and buy American.


But now the Department of Defense was saying it would cost 200 billion yen ($1.89 billion) and take 12 years to fix a problem with the Aegis booster rocket, the one that Japanese officials had just discovered.

It turned out these boosters could fall in a much wider arc than previous estimates suggested, potentially hitting nearby residential areas in Yamaguchi and Akita prefectures where the system was to be based. Defense Ministry officials had only learned of the defect before informing Kono, who was furious.

In a previous era, canceling the project would have been off the table. Costly, often delayed armaments were part of the price Tokyo paid for its U.S. alliance, which dates from a 1960 treaty signed by current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's grandfather. Japan's reliance on Washington to ensure security has undergirded decades of Japanese pacifism and low defense expenditures.

But it has become clear that times have changed. The day after he was briefed, Kono went to Prime Minister Abe's office and told him, "We've just learned the system has a critical flaw. We cannot proceed with this plan."
Japan decided to buy the controversial Aegis Ashore missile defense system in 2017, in an overture of support towards the Trump administration. © Getty Images

Abe was surprised, but, persuaded by Kono's certainty, made the unusual decision to cancel the system.

Weeks later, the consequences of the decision continue to reverberate. Washington is puzzled, analysts say, seeing the booster debate as a mere pretext for a political decision the Americans do not fully understand.

Meanwhile, Japan is in the midst of an urgent debate over how to address the hole this leaves in the country's defenses. Some right-wing politicians see a long-awaited opportunity to rethink Japan's postwar stance and allow something previously unheard of: preemptive strikes against adversaries.

Amid this political tempest sits Kono, reckoned to be in contention as a future prime minister. He has seen his approval ratings steadily rise as the controversy focused attention on him, and in most recent polls he is among the top three candidates to succeed Abe, whose term ends in September 2021. Kono's rapid political ascent on the back of the Aegis decision indicates the amount of frustration seeping into the U.S.-Japan security partnership, increasingly seen by both sides as unfair.

A costly friendship

Even before his decision to cancel the program, Kono was widely considered a reformer. He has long criticized wasteful government spending. Eccentric by Japanese establishment standards, he has a penchant for wearing suspenders and carrying a small beige and violet case. He has never revealed what is inside, but aides joke that it is Japan's (nonexistent) "nuclear briefcase."

Other things set him apart from Japan's mainstream political class: his fluent English, the product of a Georgetown education and Capitol Hill internship, and his 1.6 million Twitter followers. And while he loves taking on the establishment, he himself is its embodiment in many ways, the scion of one of Japan's most formidable political dynasties.

His father was a foreign minister and president of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, and his grandfather was a deputy prime minister. But he has established himself as something of a maverick who has opposed traditional LDP positions on issues like nuclear power generation.

Kono has pursued what he sees as wasteful military spending with a passion. Soon after assuming the post of defense minister in 2019, he directed a broad review of purchasing U.S. hardware through special agreements known as foreign military sales, which symbolized what many Japanese see as a one-sided relationship.
Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono, flanked by aides and reporters at the 2019 G-20 Summit in Osaka. © Getty Images

FMS agreements require the buyer to accept all conditions put forward by the U.S. Buyers are not allowed to negotiate price. Defense ministry officials complain that delivery dates are "estimates," and delays, which incur no penalties, are common. All equipment required after the initial deal is an option to be paid separately, and cost overruns are endemic."

In January 2020, Kono broke what is almost an official taboo on criticizing the FMS: "Japan and the United States should speed up efforts to resolve the issue of undelivered and unsettled arms purchases." Aegis Ashore may have come into his crosshairs as part of this review, a project symbolic of the growing amount of FMS purchases in recent years. Kono asked officials to study potential outcomes if Japan were to cancel contracts for "equipment whose price has skyrocketed since its introduction was decided."

A Pentagon spokesperson said of the litany of Japanese complaints that they are "aware of concerns expressed by the Government of Japan about the FMS process" and that "The United States remains committed to addressing these and other issues, and maintaining our important and steadfast security cooperation partnership with Japan."

"We are continuously reforming the FMS process to make it more agile and effective," said Lt. Col. Uriah Orland, a Department of Defense spokesperson.

'Gold-star ally'

The decision to buy the $4.2 billion weapons system in 2017 had originally symbolized the lengths Tokyo would go to -- not just to protect itself from an unhinged Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, or an expansionist China, but from the rise of isolationism in the U.S. under the erratic presidency of Donald Trump.

Trump had campaigned for office by taking aim at Washington's world-spanning -- and expensive -- postwar alliance system. "We are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion [the U.S. trade deficit]. That doesn't sound like it's smart to me," he told The New York Times in 2016. He promised to make America's allies pay more for their own defense and stop them free-riding on the U.S.

After Trump's victory, Prime Minister Abe swung into action, portraying Japan as a model U.S. ally. He raced to be the first foreign leader to meet Trump after his election. Then, in November 2017, when Trump pressed Abe during a summit in Tokyo to purchase more U.S. defense equipment, Abe saw a chance to do his counterpart a favor. The next month, the Japanese cabinet approved a plan to deploy two units of Aegis Ashore. Japan's spending on U.S. military hardware jumped under the Trump administration, hitting a record high of 701.3 billion yen in fiscal 2019.


"The purchase of the Aegis Ashore system was part of Abe's push, in the early days of the Trump administration, to really be a gold-star U.S. ally," said Mira Rapp-Hooper of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, author of "Shields of the Republic: The Triumph and Peril of America's Alliances." "Of course, he was worried about winding up in Trump's crosshairs for Japan's relatively low defense spending."

Two years later, however, Japan's effort to be Washington's best friend in Asia has been seen to go sharply into reverse. The decision to cancel Aegis Ashore came without warning. Kono announced at a June 15 news conference that the government was ending its plans for deployment, and the National Security Council formalized the decision on June 24.

Kono's explanation left U.S. officials puzzled: If intercontinental ballistic missiles were headed to Japan, who cares if a booster rocket falls on a farmer's house? The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which oversees the FMS contracts, declined to comment on the cancellation, describing it as an "internal government decision," Lt. Col. Orland said.

Even Japanese political insiders were confused. Toshihiro Nikai, secretary-general of the LDP, and parliamentarians tied to the defense industry were caught by surprise. At a June 17 news conference, Nikai expressed his frustration, saying, "It is hard to describe [my feelings] about the decision, which was unilaterally released without any consultation."
Band of bothers: Abe and Trump, pictured at a November 2017 summit in Tokyo (EPA/Jiji)

But Abe's decision was also an attempt to strike a political balance. In fact, officials close to Abe insist domestic politics was his primary concern. The premier, who has stayed in office thanks to high approval ratings, has started to see his support plummet because of scandals and a botched response to the coronavirus pandemic. If Abe kept pushing forward with the deployment, even after it was clear that boosters could fall in residential areas, the administration would face even more criticism, one of Abe's aides pointed out. It would also appear weak if it accepted the additional cost of 200 billion yen.

Known flaws

But there is another reason mooted by experts about the collapse of the Aegis purchase: It simply would not work.

Northeast Asia is an increasingly dangerous neighborhood, with both a nuclear-armed North Korea and an expansionist China. According to a defense white paper released by the Japanese government in July, North Korea has tested 33 missiles since May 2019. These tests have included a simulated "saturation attack" where multiple missiles swarm a target, and it has also tested a lofted-trajectory missile, a type particularly difficult to shoot down.

Meanwhile, Chinese government ships sailed into the waters surrounding the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands for the 111th straight day on Sunday, having spent weeks testing boundaries in the East China and South China seas.

China 's defense spending has increased at double digits annually for much of the past three decades, while Japan's has only increased gradually over the same period. A new generation of Chinese weapons, particularly its ballistic missiles, could almost certainly defeat Japan's defenses. Overwhelming an expensive antimissile system is fairly straightforward, given that anti-ballistic missile interceptors are many times more expensive than their targets.

"When the government said Japan needed Aegis Ashore, we already knew that missile defense was not effective in all situations," Heigo Sato at Takushoku University said. "It would eventually take nearly a decade to deploy Aegis Ashore. In the meantime, our adversaries would be developing more effective weapons aimed at weakening missile defense."


A former Japanese defense minister, who asked not to be identified, said: "I can't believe the boosters are the reason why they abandoned the deployment this far along in the process. There have been doubts about whether Aegis Ashore could handle North Korea's newest missiles for a while now. That's also likely one reason for the cancellation."

Experts point out there is a much simpler and more cost-effective defense against missile threats, however. And that would involve a new military doctrine, one that legalizes retaliatory and even preemptive strikes against an adversary. But Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan, established after World War II, renounces "war as a sovereign right of the nation." In line with this principle, Japan has stuck to a unique, strictly defensive security policy, known as senshu boei.

If an adversary launches a missile attack against Japan, Tokyo's current doctrine allows it to try to prevent the missiles from hitting its territory. But it is open to debate whether Japan is allowed to strike enemy missile sites that are believed to be about to launch attacks against Japan.

In a June 18 news conference, Abe crossed into what is largely uncharted political territory in Japan when he said, "We need to think through the question of what is deterrence." The sensitivity of the subject is clear in the difficulty Japanese officials have in even talking about it. The word "preemptive strikes" is off-limits. Instead, officials speak of "self-defense counterattack capability," "enemy-base counterattack capability" and "standoff defense." On July 31, LDP lawmakers mooted another: "The ability to head off missiles in enemy territory." On Tuesday Abe said that the government would start a formal discussion of the LDP's proposal.
China 's defense spending has increased at double digits annually for much of the past three decades, while Japan's has only increased gradually. © Getty Images

However, Abe and his conservative supporters have long sought to revise the constitution, including Article 9, with the aim of increasing Japan's international presence and responding to the security environment surrounding Japan. Following the government's move to abandon Aegis Ashore, the doctrine debate has grown louder within the LDP, and proponents of some strike capability seem to outnumber opponents. Despite no hope of altering the constitution before Abe's terms as LDP president and prime minister are due to end, Japanese conservatives appear determined to push on with the lengthy process -- even though public opinion still weighs firmly against it.

"The cancellation [of Aegis Ashore] was significant because it provoked a debate in Japan about obtaining limited offensive capabilities," said Yuka Koshino, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "It could lead to a significant change in Japan's security policy to obtain a 'spear' for the first time."

Following the cancellation of Aegis Ashore, the debate on "enemy base attack capability" has seemed so coordinated that some observers feel the whole episode has been stage-managed.

"The cancellation of Aegis Ashore only makes sense as a stalking horse for opening the debate on Article 9," said Jack Midgley, a consultant and former academic who is an expert on Japanese security issues.

While the debate has been couched in terms of a missile threat, there is another reason it is being aired: doubts about America's reliability as an ally, sown by Trump. He has variously described NATO as "obsolete" and the U.S. as "schmucks" for guaranteeing allies' security.

"It is a problem that neighboring countries see Japan-U.S. security cooperation as stagnant and the U.S. commitment as weakening," Takushoku University's Sato said.

On July 29, Lt. Gen. Kevin Schneider, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Japan, sought to calm fears that the U.S. would leave Japan in the lurch. "The United States is 100% absolutely steadfast in its commitment to help the government of Japan with the situation. ... That's 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a week," he told an online news conference.


Uncomfortably for proponents of the alliance, politicians in both countries seem to be finding resonance with voters in questioning the status quo. Trump in July announced plans to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany and has ordered South Korea to quintuple the amount it pays for the basing of U.S. troops, casually threatening to withdraw forces there too if this demand is not met. The latter exercise appears to be aimed at intimidating Japan.

"Probably the demands made to the South Koreans were intended to have a demonstration effect on the Japanese," Rapp-Hooper said. "But the Japanese do not traditionally spend more than 1% of [gross domestic product] on defense."

"If Trump tries to drive as hard a bargain with Japan as he has with the South Koreans, and if he is still in office, then this will be a negotiation set up to fail. And he could, in fact, be using it as a pretext to draw down troops from Japan."

Japanese officials are eager to point out that the burden-sharing math is on their side -- there are 78 U.S. military facilities for which Japan paid $3.67 billion in fiscal 2019. Japan covered 86.4% of the cost of hosting U.S. troops in fiscal 2015, according to the Defense Ministry's most recent estimate. That means the U.S. took on slightly over 10% of the burden.
Japan has persevered with weapons purchases apart from the Aegis, such as Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighter, another controversial piece of equipment. © Reuters

Meanwhile, Japan is going forward with other large weapons purchases, such as paying $23 billion for 105 F-35 state-of-the-art stealth fighters. It is also possible Japan will buy the SPY-7 radars for the Aegis system, meaning they would not cancel the entire purchase, according to Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Today, what is needed is not just protection against ballistic missiles but Integrated Air and Missile Defense, which protects from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other aerial threats," Karako said. "So, from a capability standpoint I think Japan had very good reasons to rethink its plans."

But Japan has also mirrored the debate in Washington, almost symmetrically discussing whether it needs to learn get along without the U.S. The discussion of preemptive strikes is often couched in terms of greater autonomy. "Now is the time for Japan to rethink its excessive dependence on the U.S. for its defense and help itself," said Yuichi Hosoya, a professor of international politics at Keio University who has served on key government defense panels, in an interview with Nikkei in July. "It should have the ability to strike enemy missile bases itself when an attack is imminent, within constitutional limits."

Year of change

In July, the defense ministry announced Japan would lead the development of its next-generation fighter, which raises the question of whether Japan plans to develop its own capabilities as a hedge against a failure of will on the part of the U.S.

This could lead to changes in the alliance, though experts point out that the U.S. might actually welcome Tokyo taking on more offensive capabilities. "While the Aegis Ashore decision involves some reassertion of Japanese defense autonomy, I don't think it should be viewed as a deep alliance crisis," Rapp-Hooper said. "Instead, if properly handled by both Washington and Tokyo, this could be an opportunity to move in a different and more constructive direction, emphasizing strike capabilities that, frankly, could be very much in the interest of both parties."

The rest of the year is packed with chances to highlight military reforms. Japan will revise its National Defense Program Guidelines and the Midterm Defense Program, review the National Security Strategy for the first time, choose a partner for the Air Self-Defense Force's next-generation fighter and negotiate spending arrangements for U.S. troops in Japan.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe surveys forces at the 2018 Self-Defense Forces Day. (Photo by Kei Higuchi)

With the end of Abe's term in power next year, Fumio Kishida and Shigeru Ishiba, former ministers and front-runners to replace Abe, are positioning themselves to take over, but neither has a decisive lead. But following the cancellation of Aegis Ashore, Kono has vaulted into contention, portrayed as a decisive politician on difficult political issues, political experts say. They add he is not challenging the fundamental structure of the Japan-US alliance but has become the first defense minister to try to change the way US weapons contracts are handled.

He also continues to be a gadfly with his efforts to reform military procurement. In July, he highlighted the need to cut the cost of increasing military spending by holding the first public "auction" of unnecessary, and nonlethal, military equipment.

Kono is thought to want to stay on as defense minister through a cabinet shuffle set for this fall. If he keeps his position, he may aim to further distinguish himself as a "post-Abe" candidate and make more decisions that break with past convention. He does not hide his ambitions. "As a politician, it's natural for me to aim to be prime minister," he has said.

While Japan began the Trump presidency seeking to ingratiate itself with Washington, the Aegis Ashore decision symbolizes a more transactional approach to the alliance. Kono's success is quietly being noticed throughout Japan's political establishment and may encourage more political challenges to the status quo. In this way, it has launched a debate about Japan's security that mirrors the one in the U.S. regarding the price of peace and whether allies are worth the effort.

Additional reporting by Yuri Momoi in Tokyo and Ken Moriyasu in New York.

Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of Our Nation

John Lewis
0
7.31.20



AP photo/Common Dreams


While my time here has now come to an end, I want you to know that in the last days and hours of my life you inspired me. You filled me with hope about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power to make a difference in our society. Millions of people motivated simply by human compassion laid down the burdens of division. Around the country and the world you set aside race, class, age, language and nationality to demand respect for human dignity.

That is why I had to visit Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, though I was admitted to the hospital the following day. I just had to see and feel it for myself that, after many years of silent witness, the truth is still marching on.

Emmett Till was my George Floyd. He was my Rayshard Brooks, Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor. He was 14 when he was killed, and I was only 15 years old at the time. I will never ever forget the moment when it became so clear that he could easily have been me. In those days, fear constrained us like an imaginary prison, and troubling thoughts of potential brutality committed for no understandable reason were the bars.


Though I was surrounded by two loving parents, plenty of brothers, sisters and cousins, their love could not protect me from the unholy oppression waiting just outside that family circle. Unchecked, unrestrained violence and government-sanctioned terror had the power to turn a simple stroll to the store for some Skittles or an innocent morning jog down a lonesome country road into a nightmare. If we are to survive as one unified nation, we must discover what so readily takes root in our hearts that could rob Mother Emanuel Church in South Carolina of her brightest and best, shoot unwitting concertgoers in Las Vegas and choke to death the hopes and dreams of a gifted violinist like Elijah McClain.Like so many young people today, I was searching for a way out, or some might say a way in, and then I heard the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio. He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He said we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice. He said it is not enough to say it will get better by and by. He said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.

Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it.

You must also study and learn the lessons of history because humanity has been involved in this soul-wrenching, existential struggle for a very long time. People on every continent have stood in your shoes, through decades and centuries before you. The truth does not change, and that is why the answers worked out long ago can help you find solutions to the challenges of our time. Continue to build union between movements stretching across the globe because we must put away our willingness to profit from the exploitation of others.

Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.

When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.

Mr. Lewis, the civil rights leader who died on July 17, wrote this essay shortly before his death, to be published upon the day of his funeral.

This article first appeared on Common Dreams. You can read it here.