'Never before': Shock, fear as India's capital reels from deadly riots

Bhuvan BAGGA, Maude BRULARD, Archana THIYAGARAJAN and AFP reporters,
AFP•February 26, 2020



A firefighter stands in the entrance of a New Delhi residence on February 26 following clashes that have claimed more than 25 lives (AFP Photo/Sajjad HUSSAIN )

Mohamad Rashid was too afraid to remove his helmet. In front of him was a stick-wielding mob of up to 500 men, cheering loudly and throwing flaming tyres into his shop as deadly sectarian violence swept India's capital.

Within a few minutes, flames consumed the entire market of secondhand goods and nearby vehicles, lighting up the night sky with an eerie, orange glow. Next door, a police station stood silent.

"My car was parked just there, they set it on fire too," Rashid, who rushed to his shop on his motorbike Monday night after being informed that mobs were gathered outside, told AFP as his voice shook with anger.

The market in Gokulpuri was just one of many poor, congested neighbourhoods in northeast Delhi ransacked by rampaging mobs on Monday and Tuesday as battles broke out between Hindus and Muslims.

The clashes followed renewed protests on Sunday against a contentious citizenship law brought in by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu-nationalist government that critics say is anti-Muslim.

Rashid escaped unhurt, but many others did not, with more than 25 killed and over 200 injured in the riots -- Delhi's worst in decades.

- Mayhem and destruction -

Across the densely populated neighbourhoods were scenes of devastation reminiscent of a warzone.

Narrow lanes were covered in ash, while stones, bricks and debris from smashed shops littered the streets beside rows of cars torched during the night.

Firefighters doused still-smouldering buildings with water in one neighbourhood as locals cleared the charred interior of a mosque and carefully removed the burnt remains of a Koran in another.

Police manned barricades and stood guard at riot-hit areas as residents accused them of doing nothing to help during the turmoil.

"There were people standing across on buildings and firing bullets towards here," lawyer Naeem Malik told AFP at Chandbagh, where a road divided rows of Hindu and Muslim shops.

"We tried to make many calls to the police from here in Chandbagh that people are entering our colonies chanting 'Jai Shree Ram' (a Hindu chant) but police did not help us at all."

Showing bruises on his body, Malik said he was beaten by policemen when he tried to reach some women at a site used to protest against the citizenship law.

Across the road, Sachin Sharma said he saw a Muslim mob heading to the area before being confronted by a group of Hindus.

"The last three days, the panic was such that I was not able to step out of my house, because I was scared that a group of people will come to my house... they can do everything," he told AFP.

In Jaffrabad neighbourhood, the smell of acrid smoke hung in the air as police sirens whined in the distance.

"We are afraid, we left our homes. There is no police in the streets at night, just during the day," Farhat, a 22-year-old Islamic studies student, told AFP in her father's shop as police looked on.

"They (rioters) say we are not Indians but we are Indians by blood, we are Muslims and Indians but they don't understand."

- Dream to nightmare -

The sectarian riots have shocked Delhi locals, many of whom told AFP they never expected such violence to take place in their home city.

"Our Hindu brothers' houses were attacked by stone-pelters, and our Muslim brothers' homes were also attacked," Mohammed Chand told AFP.

"Since my childhood we haven't heard of such violence between Hindus and Muslims but now we are hearing all this."

Shubham Sharma, 22, was looking forward to his wedding on Tuesday night at Gopalpur village.

But what should have been a joyous time of dancing, music and food turned into a nightmare.

"We haven't enjoyed anything or done anything because of fear. We spent so much money, all of it went to waste. Even the halwais (cooks) didn't come," a distraught Sangeeta Sharma, the groom's mother, told AFP.

A five-kilometre (three-mile) trip to the wedding became a one-and-a-half hour ordeal as the wedding party dodged rioters and hit roadblocks. The bride had to plead with police for an escort to reach the venue safely.

Some 1,000 guests had been invited to the reception but only a dozen turned up.

"There was a war-like zone throughout the route -- riots somewhere, road blocks and fires," the groom's cousin Abhay Sharma told AFP, adding that the wedding party spent the night dousing blazes behind their home.

"It is supposed to be once in a lifetime event in most of our lives. It is supposed to be that one moment -- that was spoiled forever."

MODI UNLEASHES HINDU TERROR DURING TRUMP VISIT
JUST AS HE DID IN MUMBAI WHEN HE WAS MAYOR

A mob out for blood: India's protests pit Hindus against Muslims

FALSE EQIVALENCY, HINDU'S ARE IN THE MAJORITY AND UNDER MODI HAVE BEEN ATTACKING MUSLIMS AND MUSLIM RIGHTS
By Danish Siddiqui and Devjyot Ghoshal,
Reuters•February 26, 2020

A Picture and its Story: A mob out for blood: India's protests pit Hindus against Muslims

By Danish Siddiqui and Devjyot Ghoshal

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Mohammad Zubair was on his way home from a local mosque in northeast New Delhi when he came across a large crowd. He turned towards an underpass to avoid the commotion; it proved to be a mistake.

Within seconds, he was cowering on the ground surrounded by more than a dozen young men, who began beating him with wooden sticks and metal rods. Blood flowed from his head, spattering his clothes. The blows intensified. He thought he would die.

Zubair provided his version of events at a relative's home in another part of the capital, his head wrapped in bandages.

The mid-afternoon attack on Monday, captured in a dramatic Reuters photograph, came against a backdrop of tension and violence.

Near the area of the Indian capital where it occurred, Muslim and Hindu protesters had been fighting pitched battles for hours across a concrete and metal barrier that divided the main thoroughfare, throwing rocks and primitive petrol bombs.

But the sight of a mob screaming pro-Hindu slogans suddenly turning on an unarmed individual, apparently because he was a Muslim, was a sign that growing tensions between members of India's two dominant religions may be hard to contain.

Unrest across India began in December with the passing of a law that makes non-Muslims from some neighboring nations eligible for fast-tracked citizenship - a move many Muslims say is discriminatory and marks a break from India's secular traditions.

Persecuted religious minorities including from Hindu, Sikh, or Christian communities are eligible for citizenship, but those from Islam do not enjoy all the same advantages.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) says the new citizenship law is necessary to protect persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and denies any bias against India's Muslims.

"They saw I was alone, they saw my cap, beard, shalwar kameez (clothes) and saw me as a Muslim," Zubair told Reuters. "They just started attacking, shouting slogans. What kind of humanity is this?"

"EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE"

BJP spokesman Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga said his party did not support any kind of violence, including the attack on Zubair. He blamed rival parties for stoking the chaos during U.S. President Donald Trump's visit in order to damage India's image.

"This was 100 percent pre-planned," he said of the violence, adding that his party or its policies had nothing to do with the chaos. Reuters has no independent evidence that the protests were planned in advance.

Bagga said that the federal government, which controls Delhi police, moved to deploy paramilitary forces in order to bring the situation under control.

"I believe within 24 hours everything will be fine," he added.

Delhi police were not immediately available for comment on the attack on Zubair.

Since cruising back to power in May, Modi has pursued a Hindu-first agenda that has emboldened his followers and left India's 180 million Muslims reeling. Hindus account for about 80 percent of the population.

Now opponents and supporters of the law, largely divided between Muslims and Hindus, are facing off against each other. Some say the polarization evokes a dark chapter in India's past.

"The violence is now happening in tiny pockets of Delhi and reminds you of the beginning of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots," said Yogendra Yadav, a political scientist who leads a small political party opposed to the BJP.

He was referring to mob attacks on the Sikh minority after members of the community assassinated then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Thousands of Sikhs were killed in cities including Delhi in what Indian investigators said was organized violence.

APPEAL FOR CALM

Modi appealed for calm on Wednesday after at least 24 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in some of the worst sectarian violence in New Delhi in decades.

The citizenship law behind the unrest is one of several steps taken by Modi's government since its re-election that have appealed to the Hindu majority.

In August, it stripped Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, of its special status, a move which Modi defended as a way of integrating the region with the rest of the country.

In November, the Supreme Court handed Hindu groups control of a contested site in the city of Ayodhya that paves the way for a temple to be built on a site where a mosque once stood. That was a central election promise made by the BJP.

Modi's position as chief minister of Gujarat state during some of the worst riots in India's independent history that took place there in 2002 has long stoked mistrust among some Muslims.

Up to 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, were killed during riots sparked after 59 Hindu pilgrims were burned to death when their train was set alight by suspected Muslims.

In the subsequent investigation, Modi was absolved of wrongdoing, even as dozens of people on both sides of the riots were convicted.

"REMEMBERING MY ALLAH"

Before this week's clashes in New Delhi, 25 people had been killed in running battles between protesters and police across the country.

That number has now nearly doubled after two days of arson, lootings, beatings and shootings in parts of northeastern New Delhi that police forces have struggled to contain.

Delhi police said in a statement late on Tuesday that they were making every effort to contain the clashes and urged people to maintain the peace.

Witnesses said police and paramilitary forces were patrolling the streets in far greater numbers on Wednesday. Parts of the riot-hit areas were deserted.

Several of those killed and injured had been shot, according to two medics at the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, where many of the victims were taken. Reuters could not determine who had fired on them.

Among them, Yatinder Vikal, a 33-year-old Hindu, was brought in with a gunshot wound to his right knee. His brother said Yatinder was driving a scooter when a bullet hit him.

Reuters witnesses at a local hospital spoke to both Hindu and Muslim victims who were injured in the violence.

An unconscious Zubair was eventually dragged to safety by fellow Muslims who came to his aid after throwing stones to disperse his attackers.

The 37-year-old, who makes a living doing odd jobs, was rushed to hospital where he was treated for wounds to his head and released late on Monday.

"I was thinking 'I'm not going to survive this'," he recalled. "I was remembering my Allah."

Coronavirus Exposes Worst Traits Of Trump Administration, Conservative Columnist Says
MAX GIVES THE BOOT TO TRUMP

Lee Moran,HuffPost•February 27, 2020




Trump defends suing NY Times For Opinion Piece

President Donald Trump defended his campaign’s libel lawsuit against the New York Times over an opinion article, saying, “There'll be more coming.”

Conservative columnist Max Boot, in his latest opinion piece for The Washington Post, argued the coronavirus outbreak is exposing the worst traits of the Trump White House.

“Diseases, far more than any human enemy, ruthlessly expose and exploit the weaknesses of their victims,” wrote Boot, who quit the GOP following Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory and has been fiercely critical of him ever since.

“Now the coronavirus outbreak is laying bare the pathologies of the Trump administration — which include compulsive lying, pandering to dictators, ideological aversion to ‘globalism,’ inveterate hostility toward experts and expertise, and (in a related development) sheer incompetence,” Boot added.

Boot broke down how Trump’s attempts at reversing former President Barack Obama’s legacy could ultimately harm his government’s bid to contain the spread of the coronavirus, suggesting the “chaos president” will try to find scapegoats but “has no one but himself to blame for this chaotic response.”

“He can’t figure out how to spell ‘coronavirus,’ much less how to fight it,” Boot added, in reference to Trump’s bungled spelling of its name on Twitter.

“At a time like this, it would be a lot more reassuring to think that there were actual, you know, experts in charge of the government rather than ignorant ideologues chosen for their dedication to a supreme leader unconstrained by fact, logic or morality,” he concluded. “Where’s the ‘deep state’ when you need it most?”

Opinions
Coronavirus lays bare all the pathologies of the Trump administration

By Max Boot
Columnist
Feb. 26, 2020

Diseases, far more than any human enemy, ruthlessly expose and exploit the weaknesses of their victims. Now the coronavirus outbreak is laying bare the pathologies of the Trump administration — which include compulsive lying, pandering to dictators, ideological aversion to “globalism,” inveterate hostility toward experts and expertise, and (in a related development) sheer incompetence.

Even as the epidemic was growing, President Trump was trying to tamp down concern by fulsomely praising Xi Jinping for China’s response on Feb. 7: “He is strong, sharp and powerfully focused on leading the counterattack on the Coronavirus.” Trump went on to assure the world that Xi “will be successful, especially as the weather starts to warm & the virus hopefully becomes weaker, and then gone.” This turned out to be nearly as premature as Trump’s earlier assurance that another communist dictator, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, had “agreed to denuclearization.”

Covid-19 has already infected more than 80,000 people in 37 countries, causing more than 2,600 deaths, and experts doubt it will slow in the spring. Yet Trump tweeted on Monday that “the Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA” and “Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” By Tuesday, the stock market had experienced two days of sharp drops, and the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Nancy Messonnier, was urging “the American public to work with us to prepare, in the expectation that this could be bad.”

That a virus that started in China could have a bad impact on the United States should be no surprise: Diseases don’t respect borders any more than terrorists or trade flows do. Transnational threats require transnational solutions. To cite but one example, many of the medicines and medical supplies that Americans need, including N95 face masks, come from China.

This will be news only to an ultra-nationalist president animated by unreasoning animus to “globalism.” This prejudice is about as silly as being hostile to “the weather.” Globalism isn’t something you can be for or against; it’s simply a fact of life. But Trump’s whole presidency is built on denying basic realities such as global warming and Russian attacks on our politics.

Rather than focus on real threats such as pandemics, climate change and Russian aggression, the administration is fixated on politically convenient boogeymen such as “criminal aliens” and Nigerian immigrants. The administration’s latest budget calls for a $3 billion cut for global health programs, including a 53 percent cut in funding for the World Health Organization. This comes on top of earlier budget cuts that forced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to downsize its global health security initiative in 39 out of 49 countries.

Seeking to undo everything that his predecessor had done, Trump dismantled the epidemic-fighting infrastructure the Obama administration had built up at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security. One of John Bolton’s first acts upon becoming national security adviser in 2018 was to dismiss the NSC’s global health team led by Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer, a widely respected public-health expert.

These moves are emblematic of the president’s contempt for apolitical civil servants who know what they are doing. He prefers unqualified political hacks whose only loyalty is to him rather than to the country. Many top administration posts are already filled by “acting” placeholders while further purges are being launched by the new head of presidential personnel, the president’s 29-year-old former “body man” (i.e., gofer), John McEntee, with the assistance of a 23-year-old college senior.

Even as America mobilizes against a global epidemic — soon to be a pandemic, according to a former CDC director — two-thirds of the top jobs at DHS are devoid of Senate-approved appointees. The second acting secretary in a row, Chad Wolf, inspired incredulity from both Republicans and Democrats with his Senate testimony on Tuesday. He claimed the mortality rate for covid-19 is around 2 percent — roughly the same, he said, as the common flu. In fact, the mortality rate for influenza is around 0.1 percent.

Meanwhile, the acting deputy secretary, arch-nativist Ken Cuccinelli, took to Twitter to ask for the public’s help in accessing an online map from Johns Hopkins University tracking the virus’s spread. Imagine if the head of U.S. Strategic Command asked the public for helping in learning about nuclear weapons, and you start to comprehend the scale of the problem.

Trump was said to be furious that the State Department had overruled the CDC and flown 14 sick Americans home from Japan on aircraft with healthy passengers. He wasn’t notified until after the fact, and neither were some members of his coronavirus task force. The “chaos president” will try to find scapegoats, but he has no one but himself to blame for this chaotic response. He can’t figure out how to spell “coronavirus,” much less how to fight it.

At a time like this, it would be a lot more reassuring to think that there were actual, you know, experts in charge of the government rather than ignorant ideologues chosen for their dedication to a supreme leader unconstrained by fact, logic or morality. Where’s the “deep state” when you need it most?

Trump's acting Homeland Security chief was excoriated by a GOP senator as he stumbled over basic questions on coronavirus preparation

"You're supposed to keep us safe. And the American people deserve some straight answers on the coronavirus — and I'm not getting them from you," Kennedy said to Wolf during the tense exchange before a Senate appropriations subcommittee. 

Wolf replied, "I disagree."
—NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) February 25, 2020

Can the novel coronavirus be stopped?

insider@insider.com (John Haltiwanger), Business Insider•February 25, 2020

Acting Homeland Security chief Chad Wolf on Tuesday stumbled over questioning from GOP Sen. John Kennedy about the Trump administration's coronavirus response.

Wolf struggled to offer Kennedy clear numbers on the expected spread of the virus, among other topics.

"You're supposed to keep us safe. And the American people deserve some straight answers on the coronavirus — and I'm not getting them from you," Kennedy said to Wolf.

 

President Donald Trump shakes hands with acting Department of Homeland 

Security Secretary Chad Wolf during an LA 2028 Olympic briefing in

 Los Angeles, California, February 18, 2020. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Chad Wolf, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, on Tuesday morning stumbled over basic questions from GOP Sen. John Kennedy on how the Trump administration is responding to coronavirus.

The Louisiana Republican excoriated Wolf as he deferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on questions ranging from how far the US government was to developing a vaccine for the virus to how many people are predicted to become infected.

"You're supposed to keep us safe. And the American people deserve some straight answers on the coronavirus — and I'm not getting them from you," Kennedy said to Wolf during the tense exchange before a Senate appropriations subcommittee.

Wolf replied, "I disagree."
—NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) February 25, 2020
"We do anticipate the number will grow. I don't have an exact figure for you, though," Wolf said when asked about the potential spread of the virus in the US.

As Wolf struggled to provide a clear answer, Kennedy eventually went on to say, "Don't you think you ought to check on that, as the head of Homeland Security?"

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Tuesday urged Americans to prepare for a coronavirus crisis in the US. The CDC said the number of cases in the US had risen to 57 as of Tuesday, per CNN.

"It's not so much a question of if this will happen any more, but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness," Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said during a media briefing.

Wolf, like many other Cabinet-level officials in the Trump administration, has been serving as the head of a massive government agency in an acting capacity (without Senate confirmation) for months.

The Trump administration has set up a coronavirus task force, which is being spearheaded by HHS Secretary Alex Azar and national security adviser Robert C. O'Brien, to coordinate the US government's handling of the virus.

But President Donald Trump is facing bipartisan criticism over his administration's response to coronavirus as it's spread out of China and into other countries across the globe, from Iran to Italy, which has rocked financial markets.

Trump on Monday requested $2.5 billion from Congress to address coronavirus, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said was "long overdue and completely inadequate to the scale of this emergency."

Meanwhile, Trump has also faced criticism from congressional lawmakers over his prior decisions to scrap the global health security units on the National Security Council and at Homeland Security, which Democratic lawmakers have said puts the US at a disadvantage in facing this virus.

Business Insider

Trump’s coronavirus response includes many things he criticized President Obama for


Hunter Walker
White House Correspondent,
Yahoo News•February 26, 2020


WASHINGTON — President Trump held a news conference on Wednesday evening where he discussed his administration’s response to the ongoing coronavirus epidemic. Trump announced that Vice President Mike Pence would lead the White House’s coronavirus task force and said the risk to Americans is “very low.”

Elements of the response outlined by Trump mirror things he specifically criticized President Barack Obama for during the ebola outbreak in 2014. Yahoo News asked Trump about this contradiction and he argued the coronavirus epidemic is “a much different problem than ebola.”

Trump sent nearly fifty tweets and made multiple media appearances criticizing Obama’s handling of the ebola outbreak in 2014. Among other things, Trump called for a “full travel ban” from affected regions and labeled Obama a “stubborn dope” for not implementing one.

Trump also said it was a “TOTAL JOKE” for Obama to have Ron Klain, a political operative and lawyer, serve as the “ebola czar” since Klain had “zero experience in the medical area and zero experience in infectious disease control.” Yet as he faces the coronavirus, Trump is not calling for a travel ban and he has tapped Pence, who does not have medical experience.

“This is a much different problem than ebola,” Trump said when asked about the apparent contradictions. “Ebola you disintegrated. Especially at the beginning. They’ve made a lot of progress now in ebola, but with ebola … you disintegrated. You got ebola, that was it. This one is different, much different. This is a flu. This is like a flu.”

Ebola has a higher mortality rate than the coronavirus. Trump also noted the U.S. is “working on ebola right now.”

“We can now treat ebola … at that time it was infectious and you couldn’t treat it,” Trump said. “Nobody knew anything about it. Nobody had ever heard of anything like this,so it’s a much different situation.”

Pence cited his experience as governor of Indiana as valuable preparation for his role.

“As a former governor from the state where the first MERS case emerged in 2014,” Pence said, referring to Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome. “I know full well the importance of presidential leadership, the importance of administration leadership, and the vital role of partnerships of state and local governments, and health authorities in responding to potential threats and dangers infectious diseases.”

During Pence’s time in Indiana, there was an HIV outbreak where over 200 people were infected. A 2018 study from the Yale School of Public Health faulted the state’s “belated response” and suggested it led to four times the infections that could have occurred with a more proactive approach.

Yahoo News tried to ask Pence about the HIV outbreak at the White House news conference. He did not respond to the question.

Trump Ripped For Putting 'Science-Denier' Mike Pence In Charge Of Coronavirus

Ed Mazza,HuffPost•February 27, 2020

President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that Vice President Mike Pence would lead the White House task force on COVID-19, the deadly new coronavirus infection spreading around the world. But critics are pointing out that Pence’s track record on health and science isn’t exactly reassuring.

Pence once called global warming a “myth,” downplayed the health risks of smoking, and as governor of Indiana, led his state into an HIV crisis by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and initially opposing needle exchange programs. The vice president also has no medical experience. 

Critics were quick to point out the flaws in Trump’s plan:  

Former Hoosier here 👋

Mike Pence said smoking doesn’t kill. He was single-handedly responsible for a statewide AIDS outbreak. And the lax gun laws he passed increased deaths across the Midwest.

Also, he doesn’t believe in science. 😬 https://t.co/w52rgwNH3N

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 27, 2020

Pray the Corona away https://t.co/kBE7KMd5pl

— Richard Marx (@richardmarx) February 27, 2020

So Pence is the expert who will save us all?!?#25thanyone ? https://t.co/fB9qX523RR

— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) February 27, 2020

“Mike Pence can fix this.”

- No one ever.

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) February 27, 2020

It's ok y'all......Mike Pence is in charge of the Coronavirus.

What could go wrong?#coronavirususa pic.twitter.com/cfSYvuVnpH

— Rogue NASA (@RogueNASA) February 27, 2020

Mike Pence literally does not believe in science.

It is utterly irresponsible to put him in charge of US coronavirus response as the world sits on the cusp of a pandemic.

This decision could cost people their lives. Pence’s past decisions already have. https://t.co/NhMPOusOWm

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 27, 2020

A science denier who claimed smoking didn’t cause cancer, and who enabled a HIV outbreak with his stance against needles, is now in charge of handling a global health emergency?

— Morten Øverbye (@morten) February 27, 2020

Putting a science denier like Mike Pence in charge of the Coronavirius outbreak in the US? pic.twitter.com/f6fSsueX8S

— rachel leishman (@RachelLeishman) February 27, 2020

Pence says coronavirus can’t be alone in a room with a woman who’s not it’s wife, so that’s nice

— Christine Nangle (@nanglish) February 27, 2020

Mike Pence, the climate change science denier, is going to lead a task force which requires the scientific/medical profession’s input. What could go wrong? 🤦‍♂️😱 https://t.co/rT5IRKrzFD

— TheDiaryofDaniel (@DiaryofDaniel) February 27, 2020

Mr. Pence is so skilled at public health protection that his cutbacks and personal religious decisions helped fuel an outbreak of HIV in Indiana. He is about WORST POSSIBLE CHOICE. https://t.co/1J5KSlZM9N

— Regina Griffin (@Regina_Griffin) February 27, 2020

A matter of hours before Mike Pence announces coronversion therapy to cure those affected in the United States.

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) February 27, 2020

Remember when Trump put out those blank manila folders to "prove" he had divested his assets? Mike Pence is Trump's blank manila folder trotted out to "prove" he is dealing with the coronavirus.

— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) February 27, 2020

Putting Mike Pence in charge of the coronavirus response is like putting me in the Olympics and thinking I’ll take the gold in long-distance running. I’m completely unqualified and literally unable to do it. #CoronavirusOutbreak

— Melissa Blake (@melissablake) February 27, 2020

After Trump—who just tapped Pence to lead the effort—turns his back, Sec. Azar seizes the room's attention to insist that HE remains the "chairman" but is glad to have the Veep "helping," while Pence stands motionless with a vacant middle-distance stare. So that happened. (yikes)

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) February 27, 2020

Trump has appointed Mike Pence to be in charge of Coronavirus response.

Under the theory that the person who helped perpetuate an unnecessary AIDS crisis when he was governor of Indiana has the right resume.

— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) February 27, 2020

"He's got a certain talent for this," Trump says of Pence, who was just named to lead the government's coronavirus approach.

As Indiana governor Pence allowed an HIV outbreak in Scott County to spread to epidemic proportions because he slow-walked approval for needle exchanges.

— Katie Rogers (@katierogers) February 26, 2020

In 2000, Mike #Pence wrote an op-ed stating that smoking doesn't kill people. Since then, he's made no effort to deny or clarify his bizarre claim. This is the man Trump put in charge of our country's protection from the #CoronaVirus. Science is real, Mike. Facts matter, Mike.

— Dr. Jack Brown (@DrGJackBrown) February 27, 2020

Mike Pence who enabled a massive HIV outbreak by enacting TERRIBLE public policy is in charge of the Coronavirus outbreak. We have local transmission possible in California now with an admin hell bent on punishing communities who embrace their undocumented immigrants.

— Jonathan Van Ness (@jvn) February 27, 2020

Mike Pence’s plan for dealing with the coronavirus. #coronavirususa #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/jbsExJuP8W

— Korynn (@Korynn_W) February 27, 2020

Given that Pence famously, massively fucked up the response to an HIV outbreak, he shouldn’t be the guy to handle the Coronavirus.

Like, what if we stopped picking the LEAST qualified people to handle things? What would that even be like? https://t.co/0T7qHSdA30

— Jennifer Wright (@JenAshleyWright) February 27, 2020

My dad (a doctor) had signs in every bathroom in our house that said, “Handwashing prevents infection!” with a teddy bear and a heart. I wouldn’t mind seeing those signs everywhere now. More effective than Pence.

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) February 27, 2020

Coronavirus czar Mike Pence recommends keeping a safe distance from any infected women and also uninfected women

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) February 26, 2020

I would have more faith in this guy over Pence.
It’s that low of a bar.#coronavirus pic.twitter.com/WZMe31KjhN

— Steve Marmel (@Marmel) February 27, 2020

Outraged Unions to Test Credibility of S. African Debt Curbs


Paul Vecchiatto, Amogelang Mbatha and Prinesha Naidoo,
Bloomberg•February 27, 2020



Outraged Unions to Test Credibility of S. African Debt Curbs

(Bloomberg) -- The credibility of South Africa’s proposals to curb debt and save its sole investment-grade credit rating will be put to the test by powerful labor unions outraged by plans to pare back the wage bill.

The government is seeking to backtrack on a three-year pay deal agreed with civil servants in 2018 and cut personnel spending by 37.8 billion rand ($2.5 billion) in the year through March 2021. The allocation for pay was also cut by 122.4 billion rand for the next two years to offset the effect of lower-than-expected economic growth and tax revenue, according to the budget review Finance Minister Tito Mboweni presented on Wednesday.

While financial markets cheered the news, with the rand gaining as much as 0.8% against the dollar, the government’s ability to hold firm against its 1.3 million state workers who’ve consistently won inflation-beating increases is in doubt. The Congress of South African Trade Unions, the country’s largest labor group, is a member of the ruling coalition and President Cyril Ramaphosa is indebted to it for helping him win control of the ruling party in late 2017.

“The budget is dependent on significant wage cuts,” said Investec Asset Management analysts Nazmeera Moola and Sisamkele Kobus. “There is absolutely no agreement with unions to achieve this, so at best this is a negotiating tactic.”
- ADVERTISEMENT -


The budget lays bare the need for the government to curb expenditure.

The economy is set to expand an average of just 1.2% a year through 2022, and the budget deficit is projected to reach 6.8% of gross domestic product in the year through March 2021 -- the highest since before apartheid ended in 1994. The state wage bill has surged 40% more than inflation over the past 12 years, and accounts for more than a third of total government spending.

The government isn’t planning to cut or reduce wages, according to Dondo Mogajane, the Treasury’s director-general. It’s proposing a 1.5% increase for the coming year and 4.5% in each of the next two years, he said, adding union concerns will be taken into account.

“We are opening up and saying ‘there are no holy cows here, let’s talk,’” Mogajane said in an interview. “The budget deficit is not going to be 6.8%, it’s going to be around 7% or right up to 8% if we factor out the wage proposal. We are prepared to open the conversation with labor to ask what else to cut.”

Mboweni conceded that difficult discussions with the unions lay ahead, but expressed confidence that “we will be able to find each other.”

Cosatu was less conciliatory, accusing the government of trying to force workers to bear the brunt of years of economic mismanagement and unchecked graft.

“The way the state has gone about notifying the workers is in extremely bad faith and dangerous,” said Matthew Parks, the federation’s parliamentary officer. “It causes anxiety among our members and collapses the space to engage.”

Civil servants last staged a strike in 2010 that dragged on for three weeks before they were awarded an inflation-beating 7.5% raise.

“The real issue from the budget seems to be the difficult times that lie ahead with very muted economic growth and a lot of cost-cutting, especially with the public-sector wage bill,” said Brendan Gace, head of private clients at Anchor Capital (Pty) Ltd. If spending on wages is curbed, there will be “an inevitable clash between government and the trade unions,” he said.

Moody’s Investors Service is the only major ratings company that still assesses South Africa’s debt at investment grade and is scheduled to make an announcement on the rating next month.

The budget highlights the severe deterioration underway in public finances and the long-term policy challenge of stabilizing government debt, Fitch Ratings, which has the country on one level below investment grade with a negative outlook, said on Wednesday.

“These consolidation measures rely heavily on hoped-for moderation in public-sector wages, which might not materialize, adding further risks to South Africa’s deficit and debt trajectories,” Fitch said in a statement in its website.

Opinion: Why is humanity so reluctant to save itself from climate change?

The biggest challenge in keeping Earth from overheating isn’t technical, it’s political

By WILLEME. BUITER

Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citigroup, is a visiting professor at Columbia University.

PHILL MAGAKOE/AFP via Getty Images

Members of South Africa’s main opposition party protest a

 looming 9% hike in electricity prices. More than half a billion 

people in Sub-Sahara Africa have no access to electricity at all.

NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — Despite the buzz around climate action at this year’s World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s current environmental prospects look grim. There are three obstacles: climate-change denial; the economics of reducing greenhouse-gas (GHGs) emissions; and the politics of mitigation policies, which tend to be highly regressive.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global carbon-dioxide emissions must be cut by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and then eliminated entirely by 2050, to have even a reasonable chance of preventing global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

There is a massive free-rider problem. Under current circumstances, it will always be individually rational to let others cut back on their emissions rather than doing so yourself. The only way to correct this problem is through collective rationality or enlightened self-interest.

“We need quick wins,” warns the United Nations Environment Program in its latest Emissions Gap Report, “or the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement will slip out of reach.”

That is an understatement. Even if the current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the 2015 Paris accord were met, emissions in 2030 would 38% above where they need to be. Global average temperatures will be on track to rise by a disastrous 2.9° to 3.4°C by 2100, with continuing increases thereafter.

The NDC targets would need to be roughly tripled just to limit warming to 2°C, and would have to increase fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal.

That is not going to happen. The only time in recent history when CO2 emissions have looked as though they might plateau was in 2014-2016, owing to weak global growth. According to the Global Carbon Project, emissions have since increased again, by 2.7% in 2018 and 0.6% in 2019.

Making matters worse, the December 2019 U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP25) was a dismal failure, resulting in no new climate pledges or clear messages of intent for this year’s COP26 summit in Glasgow.

Why is humanity so reluctant to save itself?

Denial is the least of our worries

First, many people simply do not accept the predictions issued by climate scientists. But denialism is the least serious of the three main obstacles. There will always be a minority for whom facts and logic are unwelcome distractions. Yet even President Donald Trump must realize by now that climate change will undermine the future viability and profitability of Mar-a-Lago.


As the real-world costs of climate-driven disasters mount over time, denialism will become less of an issue. Indeed, a November 2019 Yale University survey finds that 62% of registered voters in the United States would support a president “declaring global warming a national emergency if Congress does not act.”

The second major challenge is that greenhouse-gas emissions are the quintessential global economic externality. Climate change doesn’t respect borders; greenhouse gases emitted anywhere will affect everyone eventually.

Countries like India and those in Sub-Saharan Africa are not going to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of emissions reductions.

That means there is a massive free-rider problem. Under current circumstances, it will always be individually rational to let others cut back on their emissions rather than doing so yourself. The only way to correct this problem is through collective rationality or enlightened self-interest.

But given the current state of multilateralism, expecting a truly global effort in pursuit of the common good is a tall order.
The poor pay the price

The third obstacle is that effective policies to reduce emissions disproportionately hurt the poor (both globally and within countries). The International Monetary Fund recently calculated that the current effective global price of CO2 emissions is a mere $2 per ton. To limit global warming to less than 2°C, however, would require an average effective price of $75 per ton by 2030.

I agree with Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff that a uniform global carbon-emissions tax is likely to be the best solution to the climate challenge, at least from an environmental perspective.

But with such a tax in place, average household electricity prices over the next decade would increase cumulatively by 45%, and gasoline prices by 15%.
More than 1 billion people lack access to basic electricity.

Hence, even within rich countries, the distributional consequences would be difficult to handle, as France’s government found out after it tried to introduce a modest fuel tax in 2018. Worse, since the 1980s, effective redistributive fiscal mechanisms in most advanced economies have been emasculated.

Moreover, the larger distributional burden of a global carbon tax would fall disproportionately on poor countries that are hoping to pursue rapid development in the coming decades. Around 570 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa alone lack access to basic electricity; globally, the number is closer to 1.2 billion.

Needless to say, long-overdue growth in developing and emerging economies will bring massive increases in energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions. In India, China, and many other countries, coal-fired power plants will likely continue to be built for years to come.

Clean and renewable energy from solar and wind will complement, but not displace, fossil fuels in these countries. Despite the strides made in battery storage technology, the intermittency problems associated with wind and solar imply a continuing role for fossil fuels and nuclear power.

India wants development

Consider India, which accounts for 7% of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions, making it the world’s fourth-largest emitter, after China (27%), the U.S. (15%), and the European Union (10%). That is despite the fact that India’s per capita energy consumption is around one-tenth of America’s. And even if that figure doubles by 2030, it will still be only half of what China’s was in 2015.

Countries like India and those in Sub-Saharan Africa are not going to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of emissions reductions.

The only way to square the circle is to extend financial aid to developing and emerging economies undergoing unavoidably energy-intensive development, so that they can afford to internalize the externality through an appropriately steep tax on emissions.

Unfortunately, sustained large-scale international aid programs are deeply unpopular. And given that domestic fiscal solidarity is already wanting, cross-border fiscal solidarity seems like a non-starter. Unless and until that changes, an existential crisis of our own making will only worsen.

Opinion: Here are all the things that could go wrong in 2020, according to Nouriel Roubini


From hot wars to weaponized financial assets, the U.S. faces severe economic, financial, political and geopolitical disturbances



By NOURIELROUBINI

Published: Feb 22, 2020 12:23 p.m. ET

Getty ImagesRussia and China would each like to undercut

 American hard and soft power abroad by destabilizing the U.S. from within.

NEW YORK (Project Syndicate) — In my 2010 book, “Crisis Economics,” I defined financial crises not as the “black swan” events that Nassim Nicholas Taleb described in his eponymous bestseller, but as “white swans.”

According to Taleb, black swans are events that emerge unpredictably, like a tornado, from a fat-tailed statistical distribution. But I argued that financial crises, at least, are more like hurricanes: They are the predictable result of built-up economic and financial vulnerabilities and policy mistakes.

There are times when we should expect the system to reach a tipping point — the “Minsky Moment” — when a boom and a bubble turn into a crash and a bust. Such events are not about the “unknown unknowns” but rather the “known unknowns.”
Financial markets remain blissfully in denial of the many predictable global crises that could come to a head this year, particularly in the months before the U.S. presidential election. In addition to the increasingly obvious risks associated with climate change, at least four countries want to destabilize the US from within.


Beyond the usual economic and policy risks that most financial analysts worry about, a number of potentially seismic white swans are visible on the horizon this year. Any of them could trigger severe economic, financial, political and geopolitical disturbances unlike anything since the 2008 crisis.
Four powers

For starters, the United States is locked in an escalating strategic rivalry with at least four implicitly aligned revisionist powers: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. These countries all have an interest in challenging the U.S.-led global order, and 2020 could be a critical year for them, owing to the U.S. presidential election and the potential change in U.S. global policies that could follow.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. is trying to contain or even trigger regime change in these four countries through economic sanctions and other means. Similarly, the four revisionists want to undercut American hard and soft power abroad by destabilizing the U.S. from within through asymmetric warfare.



If the U.S. election descends into partisan rancor, chaos, disputed vote tallies and accusations of “rigged” elections, so much the better for America’s rivals. A breakdown of the U.S. political system would weaken American power abroad.

Moreover, some countries have a particular interest in removing Trump.

The acute threat that he poses to the Iranian regime gives it every reason to escalate the conflict with the U.S. in the coming months — even if it means risking a full-scale war — on the chance that the ensuing spike in oil prices CL.1, -1.35% would crash the U.S. stock market DJIA, -0.46% SPX, -0.38% , trigger a recession and sink Trump’s re-election prospects.
If the U.S. election descends into partisan rancor, chaos, disputed vote tallies and accusations of “rigged” elections, so much the better for America’s rivals. A breakdown of the U.S. political system would weaken American power abroad.


Yes, the consensus view is that the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani has deterred Iran, but that argument misunderstands the regime’s perverse incentives. War between U.S. and Iran is likely this year; the current calm is the one before the proverbial storm.
Cold war with China

As for U.S.-China relations, the recent “Phase 1” deal is a temporary Band-aid. The bilateral cold war over technology, data, investment, currency and finance is already escalating sharply.

The COVID-19 outbreak has reinforced the position of those in the U.S. arguing for containment, and lent further momentum to the broader trend of Sino-American “decoupling.”

More immediately, the epidemic is likely to be more severe than currently expected, and the disruption to the Chinese economy will have spillover effects on global supply chains — including pharma inputs, of which China is a critical supplier — and business confidence, all of which will likely be more severe than financial markets’ current complacency suggests.

Caroline Baum: Stock market abandons all caution even as killer coronavirus spreads

Although the Sino-American cold war is by definition a low-intensity conflict, a sharp escalation is likely this year. To some Chinese leaders, it cannot be a coincidence that their country is simultaneously experiencing a massive swine flu outbreak, a severe bird flu, a coronavirus epidemic, political unrest in Hong Kong, the re-election of Taiwan’s pro-independence president, and stepped-up U.S. naval operations in the East and South China Seas.

Regardless of whether China has only itself to blame for some of these crises, the view in Beijing is veering toward the conspiratorial.
Cyberwarfare

But open aggression is not really an option at this point, given the asymmetry of conventional power. China’s immediate response to U.S. containment efforts will likely take the form of cyberwarfare.

There are several obvious targets. Chinese hackers — and their Russian, North Korean and Iranian counterparts — could interfere in the U.S. election by flooding Americans with misinformation and deep fakes. With the electorate already so polarized, it is not difficult to imagine armed partisans taking to the streets to challenge the results, leading to serious violence and chaos.

Revisionist powers could also attack the U.S. and Western financial systems — including the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) platform. Already, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has warned that a cyberattack on European financial markets could cost $645 billion.

And security officials have expressed similar concerns about the U.S., where an even wider range of telecommunication infrastructure is potentially vulnerable.

By next year, the U.S.-China conflict could have escalated from a cold war to a near-hot one.

A Chinese regime and economy severely damaged by the COVID-19 crisis and facing restless masses will need an external scapegoat, and will likely set its sights on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and U.S. naval positions in the East and South China Seas; confrontation could creep into escalating military accidents.
Dump Treasury?

It could also pursue the financial “nuclear option” of dumping its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities TMUBMUSD10Y, -2.63% if escalation does take place. Because U.S. assets comprise such a large share of China’s (and, to a lesser extent, Russia’s) foreign reserves, the Chinese are increasingly worried that such assets could be frozen through U.S. sanctions (like those already used against Iran and North Korea).

Don’t miss: Thirty-year Treasury yield breaks to all-time low as coronavirus fear stokes safe-haven demand

Of course, dumping U.S. Treasurys would impede China’s economic growth if dollar BUXX, -0.36% assets were sold and converted back into yuan USDCNH, -0.0171% (which would appreciate). But China could diversify its reserves by converting them into another liquid asset that is less vulnerable to U.S. primary or secondary sanctions, namely gold GC00, +0.43% . Indeed, both China and Russia have been stockpiling gold reserves (overtly and covertly), which explains the 30% spike in gold prices since early 2019.

In a selloff scenario, the capital gains on gold would compensate for any loss incurred from dumping U.S. Treasuries, whose yields would spike as their market price and value fell. So far, China and Russia’s shift into gold has occurred slowly, leaving Treasury yields unaffected. But if this diversification strategy accelerates, as is likely, it could trigger a shock in the U.S. Treasuries market, possibly leading to a sharp economic slowdown in the U.S.

Read more: Gold on track for biggest weekly gain since June as downbeat economic data fuel haven demand
U.S. won’t sit idle

The U.S., of course, will not sit idly by while coming under asymmetric attack.

It has already been increasing the pressure on these countries with sanctions and other forms of trade and financial warfare, not to mention its own world-beating cyberwarfare capabilities. U.S. cyberattacks against the four rivals will continue to intensify this year, raising the risk of the first-ever cyber world war and massive economic, financial and political disorder.

Looking beyond the risk of severe geopolitical escalations in 2020, there are additional medium-term risks associated with climate change, which could trigger costly environmental disasters. Climate change is not just a lumbering giant that will cause economic and financial havoc decades from now. It is a threat in the here and now, as demonstrated by the growing frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

In addition to climate change, there is evidence that separate, deeper seismic events are underway, leading to rapid global movements in magnetic polarity and accelerating ocean currents.

Any one of these developments could augur an environmental white swan event, as could climatic “tipping points” such as the collapse of major ice sheets in Antarctica or Greenland in the next few years. We already know that underwater volcanic activity is increasing; what if that trend translates into rapid marine acidification and the depletion of global fish stocks upon which billions of people rely?
Where we stand

As of early 2020, this is where we stand: The U.S. and Iran have already had a military confrontation that will likely soon escalate; China is in the grip of a viral outbreak that could become a global pandemic; cyberwarfare is ongoing; major holders of U.S. Treasury debt are pursuing diversification strategies; the Democratic presidential primary is exposing rifts in the opposition to Trump and already casting doubt on vote-counting processes; rivalries between the U.S. and four revisionist powers are escalating; and the real-world costs of climate change and other environmental trends are mounting.

This list is hardly exhaustive, but it points to what one can reasonably expect for 2020. Financial markets, meanwhile, remain blissfully in denial of the risks, convinced that a calm if not happy year awaits major economies and global markets.

This article was published with permission of Project Syndicate — The White Swans of 2020.

Oil giant BP pulls out of 3 trade groups over climate policies but sticks with the powerful API



NOT YET BEYOND PETROLEUM 

(THEIR BRAND NAME CHANGE TILL THE DEEP WATER  HORIZON DISASTER)

Shifting positions on methane leaks and carbon pricing are behind BP’s move

Getty ImagesBritish oil giant BP is withdrawing from three 

trade groups because of differences on climate policies. 

It remains aligned with the American Petroleum Institute.


By RACHEL KONING BEALS NEWS EDITOR


BP PLC is cutting ties with three trade groups over climate policies, a move announced Wednesday that follows the energy giant’s vow earlier this month to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

BP BP, -0.76% will remain aligned with the more prominent fossil-fuel lobbyist, the American Petroleum Institute, leaving some sustainable investing analysts questioning the oil giant’s full commitment to issues such as curbing methane leaks.

BP is pulling out of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Western Energy Alliance and the Western States Petroleum Association, the company said in a release.

BP said it was quitting WEA because it was “not aligned” with BP’s positions on reducing methane leaks. Methane has a greenhouse effect that is about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period and is responsible for at least 25% of global heating, according to the UN Environment Programme.

“Leaving the API would have made this a bolder commitment by BP because API is so much larger and more influential than the groups that BP exited from,” said Andrew Logan, senior director for oil and gas at sustainable investing advocate Ceres.

The API “last fall supported the rollback of U.S. federal methane regulation — a position opposite to the one taken by BP and which was the primary reason that BP left WEA,” said Logan.


Read: JP Morgan Chase — the oil industry’s bank of choice — will withdraw support for some fossil fuels

The Climate Investigations Center has a log on API efforts, going back at least to the 1960s, of funding and fostering efforts to play down man-made climate change, although API has worked in recent years to massage its messaging. It supports the “ambitions” of the Paris Climate agreement, which aims to hold the global average temperature increase to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and in the future, even deeper reductions. API has not officially supported the agreement itself, however.

The oil giant said it was leaving the other groups because of differences over putting a price on carbon. BP had spent about $13 million in 2018 to help the WSPA defeat a carbon tax in Washington state.

Read: Companies are too slow with shift to carbon neutral, say investors with $35 trillion at stake

At least one trade group said BP is misrepresenting its role in climate-change efforts.

“As an active member of our executive committee, BP knows full well that AFPM recognizes that climate change is real and that we are committed to engaging on and developing policies that enable our members to provide the fuels and petrochemicals that humanity needs to thrive in a sustainable way,” said AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson. “When it comes to specific policy prescriptions, we — like any family — don’t always agree, but it is certain that more industry-wide progress is achieved through ongoing collaboration than without it.”

BP rival Shell RDS.A, -0.33% RDS.B, +0.26% had already pulled out of the AFPM , saying it was at odds with the refining and petrochemical group on the Paris climate agreement, carbon pricing, fuel mandates and the reduction of methane emissions.

BP, as part of its previously announced carbon pledge, said it would install monitoring equipment at oil CL00, -1.27% and gas processing plants by 2023 as it seeks to reduce the amount of methane leaks by 50%. The company said it will increase investment in non-oil and gas businesses. And it will stop “corporate reputation advertising’’ and shift that spending toward promoting carbon-reduction policies.

“If BP is to stand a chance of achieving our ambition, then we have to earn back people’s trust,” said CEO Bernard Looney with Wednesday’s announcement. “Our priority is to work to influence within trade associations, but we may publicly dissent or resign our membership if there is material misalignment on high-priority issues.”

In London trading, BP shares are down 9% in the year to date and have shed more than 19% over the past year. Oil prices are at their lowest in more than a year as fears about the spread of the COVID-19 virus outside of China continue to drive trade across financial markets.

FROM MARKETWATCH