Opinion – Impacts and Restrictions to Human Rights During COVID-19

Liliana Lyra Jubilut and Christina M. Cerna

Jun 30 2020 

The COVID-19 pandemic is a complex emergency, a biological and sanitary disaster that has impacted the entire world. Its multidimensionality is also present in the responses to it (health, security, economic, and political aspects), and a relevant element that ought to be present in the design and implementation of measures to face the new coronavirus implicates human rights. The impacts of COVID-19 on human rights can be divided into three main groups: 1) human rights affected, 2) vulnerable groups (both preexisting and whose vulnerability emerged from the pandemic), and 3) systemic impacts.

59

Belarusian opposition supporters arrested during Minsk prote

There are human rights touched by COVID-19 in terms of access to prevention and treatment, among which are the right to health (both physical and mental, and in terms of preventive actions to avoid contamination and remedy, and actions that allow access to health care); access to water and sanitary measures; access to information; and non-discrimination (in access and rights). Then, there are the rights impacted by the necessary responses to the pandemic, such as freedom of movement (shelter in place and ability to leave one’s home); freedom of assembly and association; right to work; labor rights; access to work and income; right to education, access to food security, and right to private property.

Besides these, some rights demand responses to be in place in order to be protected or not violated, such as the ones relating to humanitarian assistance, economic aid, and measures to prevent the increase in inequalities. And, lastly, some rights have been violated in the responses to COVID-19, such as freedom of expression, the right to privacy (encompassing data protection and protection against intrusive surveillance techniques), and non-discrimination (including the prohibition of xenophobia).

Human rights are fundamental, basic, and universal. Human rights are central to the life-projects of individuals, they comprise the core values of most societies (including the international community), and define human dignity. Consequently, restrictions imposed upon them are limited. First, they must be established by law – in International Law, for instance, in Article 4(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the specific provisions of the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, in the human rights conventions.

Assistance in interpreting these restrictions are provided in General Comments 5 and 29 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Second, some rights are absolute and may not be suspended at all, such as the prohibition of torture. Third, only those rights which must be suspended to deal with the emergency may be limited. And fourth, the suspensions must be temporary, necessary, legal, and proportional.

The proportionality element requires, on the one hand, that States seek the least harmful measures possible in dealing with the emergency, and, on the other hand, it is closely related to the protection of vulnerable groups.

Vulnerable groups, in general, are identified by gender (women and LGBTI+ persons); age (children and the elderly); other specific conditions (such as disability, chronic illnesses, or lack of resources – such as for homeless persons); or status (prisoners, detainees, refugees, asylum seekers, ethnic/national minorities, and indigenous peoples). All of these vulnerable groups have been affected by COVID-19, for instance by domestic violence, sexual violence, limitation of access to legal abortion, “triple work shifts” (as women’s work has exponentially increased at work and home), restrictions in education, restriction in access to school meals, access to health systems, accessibility in general, closing of borders, exposure to risk in deliveries and essential works, detention conditions, inclusion in public policies and lack of specific and tailored public policies in the pandemic, as well as discrimination.

The COVID-19 emergency, however, has also created vulnerability for groups that are not generally thought of as vulnerable, such as health workers, essential workers, workers in the entertainment/cultural and the food industry, and journalists. It has, furthermore, exacerbated existing inequalities (social, economic, and in terms of access), thus impacting some groups disproportionately.

This reflects systemic problems in the societies at large. But the COVID-19 pandemic has brought forth other systemic issues. One issue relates to access to justice, with the judicial systems paralyzed and/or trying to figure out ways to reinvent or update their procedures to allow for access. In addition, worldwide calls to end systemic racism and reform police departments that have exercised excessive violence with regard to vulnerable groups reveal another systemic societal problem.

A second issue demands a reflection on the role and adequate access to technology, as, on the one hand, responses to the pandemic need to be globally shared, and on the other, a plethora of gadgets, tools, and apps have been the solution for some, while internet access remains unattainable for millions. The other side of the coin is the lack of control and incentive for the removal of misinformation and fake cures for COVID-19 being widely spread on the internet and followed by people who have no access to better information. 

Third, there are challenges to democracy. Responses to polls about the pandemic have revealed that some people consider authoritarian regimes better able to deal with the pandemic than democracies. An understandable perception given that democracies require the consent of the governed to agree to the measures imposed upon them, whereas authoritarian regimes do not require such consent and in a democracy not all people will grant their consent resulting often in a less than perfect outcome. As democracies are the best environment for human rights, weakening democracies impacts human rights protection.

It is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an important impact on human rights. Actions need to be taken to fight the emergency, but human rights need to be taken into consideration and be respected even during a pandemic.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Human Rights and Democracy Amidst Militarized COVID-19 Responses in Southeast Asia
• Opinion – COVID-19: Human Dignity Under Siege Amidst Multiple Crises
• Opinion – How to Call the COVID-19 Pandemic and Why it Matters
• Opinion – Cambodia’s COVID-19 Success, Economic Fallout and Image Crisis
• Can Populism Survive COVID-19?
• Opinion – Nationalism and Trump’s Response to Covid-19
• Opinion – Lessons America’s Adversaries Can Learn from the Covid-19 Pandemic  
• Opinion – Revisiting Paradiplomacy in the Context of COVID-19
• COVID-19: An Opportunity for the Cambodian Government to Earn Trust
• Opinion – Post-COVID-19 Climate Change Politics

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Liliana Lyra Jubilut has a PhD and a Master’s in International Law from Universidade de São Paulo, and a LLM in International Legal Studies from NYU School of Law. She is a Professor of the Post-graduate program in Law of Universidade Católica de Santos, where she coordinates the research group “Direitos Humanos e Vulnerabilidades” (“Human Rights and Vulnerabilities”).

Christina M. Cerna is a Mid-Career Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University; Adjunct Professor at Georgetown U. Law School and a Member of Amnesty International’s USA Board of Directors. Previously she was Principal Human Rights Specialist for the OAS (1979–2012), Chair, ILA’s International Human Rights Law Committee (2008–2016) and consultant to ASEAN (2007–2014) regarding the creation of its human rights commission (2007–2014).

Both authors are part of the Human Rights in times of emergency of the International Law Association. Christina is its co-chair and Liliana the alternate member from Brazil.

Bolsonaro’s Brazil in Times of COVID-19: A Necropolitical Pharmakon
Manuela da Rosa Jorge
Download PDF
May 19 2020 •

Antonio Scorza / Shutterstock

Since the start of the anti-corruption operation Car Wash in 2014, and increasingly after the impeachment of Brazil’s first ever female president, Dilma Rousseff (Worker’s Party; PT) in 2016, Brazil’s population has found itself at a crossroads: people either still support Lula’s party, the Workers’ Party, or blame it for Brazil’s “disease” (i.e., corruption) which was in need of an urgent cure. Against this backdrop, during the 2018 presidential elections the country faced a choice among 13 candidates, including the current right-wing President of Brazil, former backbench congressman Jair Messias Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s campaign motto was an anti-corruption one, and it was also implicitly anti-PT. He presented himself as the remedy for Brazil’s corruption disease. At that time, his apparent lack of filter and extravagant personality helped him to gain momentum, especially after the arrest of Lula in April 2018 (as well as the fact that during the first phase of the campaign he suffered a knife attack in which he was wounded in the stomach, and this fuelled many conspiracy theories and ever-more divisive rhetoric). Ultimately, Bolsonaro and PT’s candidate, Professor Fernando Haddad, were the two candidates with the most votes in the first round of the election.

Despite his previous open idolatry of General Ustra, one of Brazil’s most notorious torturers from the dictatorship period, his advocacy of the right to bear arms, and various homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, and racist episodes, Bolsonaro embodies a “myth” among his supporters as the man capable of curing Brazil of its corruption “disease”. As we now know, Bolsonaro was elected in the second round of voting with 55.13% of votes against 44.87% for Haddad. Yet, to many Brazilians, what came after was a tragedy. At the time of writing, during this global pandemic, Bolsonaro has downplayed the death of more than fifteen thousand Brazilians due to Covid-19 and the overall pandemic situation. He has simultaneously become immersed in a corruption scandal involving his family, and faces a serious political crisis. Since the first Covid-19 infections and deaths in Brazil, governors (even those once aligned with Bolsonaro) have decided to take matters into their own hands due to Bolsonaro’s policies. This has opened up a divide with tensions rising in Brazilian politics between federal and state powers, with Bolsonaro holding up federal financial support or imposing conditions on it.

Moreover, his authoritarian character has been highlighted after a series of clashes with his now former Health Minister, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, when the latter was fired for not agreeing with Bolsonaro; his successor, Nelson Teich, then resigned after less than a month in the job. In this spirit, Bolsonaro keeps reminding the media and his ministers that he is the “boss”, and that anyone who does not follow his commands will be fired. The Justice Minister, Sergio Moro, who became famous as the Car Wash operation judge who ordered Lula’s arrest in 2018, has also resigned due to the alleged interference of Bolsonaro in the Federal Police investigations, and several impeachment requests are now on the desk of the Congress President, Rodrigo Maia.

During February and March, as devasting news was spreading from East Asian and Southern European countries and scientific studies were becoming available, Bolsonaro’s government had time to prepare and to implement a strategy to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in Brazil. However, his denial of the danger of Covid-19, his opposition to the WHO’s guidance, and his anti-social distancing discourse and actions have been astounding, to say the least. For instance, he stated that the virus was (and still is) just a “little flu”, and that the Covid-19 news in the Brazilian media was hysterical. He even stated that Brazilians should be studied because they “never catch anything” even if they dive into “sewage”; thus, he claimed, there was nothing to worry about with regard to Covid-19. Moreover, he participated in an anti-democratic protest outside the Presidential Palace. If this anti-democratic sentiment was not shocking enough, he did so without wearing a mask or respecting social-distancing.

As for the “masses”, the first Brazilian to sadly die of Covid-19 was a 63-year-old cleaning worker, Cleonice Gonçalves, in one of Brazil’s most expensive neighbourhoods, Leblon, in Rio de Janeiro, whose employer had recently returned from a holiday to Italy, and was symptomatic. Although globally the discourse reiterates that the virus does not discriminate, in countries such as Brazil, where the public health system is on the verge of collapse and social inequality continues to increase, workers have to decide between going to work to earn a living at the risk of catching the virus or becoming unemployed. The immobility of the rich, safe under the roofs of their secure apartment complexes and able to afford medical care, is causing the poor’s mobility to be as dangerous to them as the virus itself. This is because they need to go to work, and even if immobility is possible for them (if they can stay home), this often means living in the favelas, where another forecast tragedy is happening – one that follows a necropolitical dynamic of slow violence.


The deep inequalities in Brazilian demographics and living spaces are being highlighted now more than ever with the spread of Covid-19. The results in the poorest areas of the country could not be more devastating: mass graves are being used and Brazilians face the risk of living in the country with the highest rates of contagion in the world. They are being left to die due to Bolsonaro’s necropolitical policies. As the country’s leader, he offers no empathy or condolences, as this morbid statement demonstrates: ‘Some will die, so what? I lament it, what do you want me to do? I know my name is Messias [his middle name] but I can’t work miracles’ – “Messias” stands for Messiah in Portuguese.

Once seen by millions as the remedy for Brazil’s “disease”, Bolsonaro is turning into the poison many feared he would become. Not only does he perpetuate the same disease he claimed he would cure, corruption, he is also failing to prevent the deaths of thousands with his indifference and his necropolitical policies. We are witnessing in Brazil what Achille Mbembe described as ‘the senseless death of manifold innocent people, that is to say, of those whom one would expect to be spared, including in situations of extremity’. He was discussing Fanon’s pharmakon in the colonial context, a situation which the Covid-19 pandemic echoes. It echoes Brazil’s present moment not for its similarities with the colonial context per se, but due to its tension between indifference and action; according to Mbembe, ‘conquest and colonial occupation demanded not only an extraordinary aptitude for indifference but also norm-defying capacities to perform properly repugnant acts.’ Hence, during colonisation, colonised bodies endured not only the violence performed against them in the form of exploitation, oppression, and killings; they also endured their colonisers’ indifference towards their very existence and subsequent suffering.

Today in Brazil, it will be the elderly, the Indigenous population, and the poorest who will continue to pay the price of Bolsonaro’s poison if nothing is done to remedy Brazil’s current necropolitical pharmakon. Banging pots and pans alone will not do the job. Empathy, solidarity, and collective action are needed – now more than ever.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
Analyzing Jair Bolsonaro’s COVID-19 War Metaphors
Between Political Crisis and COVID-19: Bolsonaro’s Foreign Policy
Opinion – Bolsonaro’s Foreign Policy is Typically Latin American
Socio-economic Impacts and Counter-cyclical Policies to Face Coronavirus in Brazil
Can Populism Survive COVID-19?
Brazil and the United States: Will President Bolsonaro Bandwagon?
Opinion – Revisiting Paradiplomacy in the Context of COVID-19
Nigeria’s Soft Power in the Face of COVID-19
Trump and Bolsonaro: Much Ado About Nothing?
Opinion – Cambodia’s COVID-19 Success, Economic Fallout and Image Crisis


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Manuela da Rosa Jorge is a Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar at the School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary, University of London.

Opinion – Nationalism and Trump’s Response to Covid-19
Benjamin Cherry-Smith
Download PDF
Apr 3 2020 • 

Image by Jernej Furman


There is no doubting the impact that covid-19 – also known as coronavirus and the novel coronavirus – is having on the world, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) declaring it a pandemic on March 11th. Governments around the world are mobilising their health systems and restricting the travel and movement of their citizens to lessen the spread. As covid-19 continues to spreads throughout global populations, the impact that the virus can have on global economies, such as the United States (US), China, and Europe, are only starting to be felt. Politically, there is a need to show leadership and to clearly communicate the precautions necessary to mitigate the further spread of covid-19 and flatten the curve. Clear communication is a skill which the US President Donald Trump appears to be lackin

For the US, the covid-19 outbreak and response have come during the lead up to the 2020 Presidential election. It is this election which sets the context for, and colours the interpretation of, President Trump’s March 11th address to the nation. Trump’s White House address furthered his nationalist discourse. Trump achieved through an ambiguous policy speech where he employed nationalist messaging and showed his favour for other world leaders who express and act out nationalist agendas. Specifically, there are two aspects of the address which further Trump’s nationalist agenda, the European travel ban and the rhetoric he uses when referring to covid-19.

The World Responds

On the policy front, the Trump administration had initially struggled to respond to the covid-19 outbreak. While Trump acted early, enacting a travel ban from China in mid-January that gave time for the US to respond; time which the administration did not adequately use. As a result of not acting sufficiently, the US is now dealing with the world’s largest number of cases with over 160,000 confirmed cases.

This response stood in contrast with China – where the virus originated – or states which are geographically close to China, such as South Korea. President Trump’s response though echoed Western states who had not yet experienced the spread of covid-19.


In China, Beijing showcased its command and control approach to containing the outbreak. Beijing locked down Hubei province, restricting the movement of 18 million people, and built a 1,000-bed hospital for covid-19 patients. According to a covid-19 tracker created by Johns Hopkins University, China is currently handling the fourth largest outbreak with more than 80,000 cases.

In the West, states have responded differently from both China and each other. They were approaching it either as an economic issue first and health issues second. Recognising the impact that the virus could have but seeking to ‘delay‘ the peak to flatten the curve, allowing time for the state apparatus to ramp up response to the virus. However, as covid-19 continues to spread throughout Europe, particularly as Italy and Spain enter lockdown, Western policymakers have adopted similar measures not just to each other, but those which were seen in China. Enforced quarantining and social distancing with ‘shelter in place‘ laws passed, closing internal borders and restricting domestic travel, and enacting travel bans and closing international borders.

The European Travel Ban

Travel bans themselves, have played a critical role in buying time for the US to react to and contain covid-19. In his national address when Trump announced the ban on European travellers into the US, but made it a point to explicitly state that the United Kingdom (UK) was exempt – this exemption has since been reversed.


Nevertheless, the European travel ban furthers two of Trump’s nationalist discourses. The first builds on Trump’s anti-immigration discourse, while also further exacerbating the tension between the US and Europe. Trump blames European counties for not acting quickly in banning travel from China. For Trump, not restricting travel from China lead to the spread of covid-19 within Europe and subsequently “seeded” the US.

As Trump did not consult European leaders before his announcement, he further exacerbated the tensions between the US and Europe. Trump and European leader have clashed over a variety of different policies and approaches to addressing crises. Most notably over meeting financial obligations for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, dealing with the ongoing European immigration crisis, climate policy, the Iran nuclear deal, a small trade war and signalling the start of a new one.

The second narrative Trump plays into is rewarding other leaders who push nationalist discourses. Current UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the former leader of the Brexit referendum’s ‘Leave’ campaign and an ardent Brexiteer, has a notably positive relationship with Trump. Trump has also previously praised Johnson for his handling of Brexit and has called the European Union “an anchor [a]round the ankle” of the UK in recent bilateral trade talks.

The initial exemption of the UK from the travel ban furthers the nationalist bond between Trump and Johnson while distancing European allies.

Covid-19 the “Foreign Virus”


In the March 11th national address, Trump characterised covid-19 as a “foreign virus.” This is not the first time covid-19 has been characterised as a foreign, with Trump and Republican politicians having called covid-19 the “Wuhan virus” and the “Chinese coronavirus.”

When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refers to the covid-19 as ‘Wuhan virus,’ he is allegedly doing so to “counter Chinese Communist Party disinformation.” However, when senior policy adviser Stephen Miller – an immigration policy hardliner and one of the writers of the national address – pushes the ‘foreign virus’ discourse, the message being sent is clear. Trump, with the help of Miller, is politicising the response to covid-19 by pairing it with anti-immigration rhetoric, effectively casting the virus as an immigration issue first and public health issue second.

Trump has defended his use of ‘Chinese Virus‘ by saying “it comes from China, that’s why. I want to be accurate.” This reasoning runs in direct contrast to the WHO’s naming convention, which aims not to stigmatise communities. Prefacing covid-19 with either ‘Chinese’ or ‘Wuhan’ also has the purpose of deflecting blame away from Trump as it presents the covid-19 as a problem someone else caused. Deflecting blame means that Trump can create his own political cover on how he has handled the spread of covid-19 throughout the US.

As covid-19 continues to spread in the US and the administration continues its response, the 2020 political situation will become salient. Trump will formally switch from being a governing president to a campaigning president. During the 2020 presidential campaign, his handling of covid-19, both as a public health and economic issue, will be at the forefront. This is especially important, as covid-19 is already impacting presidential primaries. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland and Ohio have all postponed primary elections and talks about how to handle the general election in November are underway.

Whatever the case may be, while the Democrats are still deciding who their presidential nominee will be, Trump will use every opportunity to push his nationalist discourse. His national address just demonstrates that no issue is free from his nationalist agenda, every policy not thought out requiring further clarification, and while speeches lack rhetorical clarity, they have clear messaging intent.

Further Reading on E-International Relations


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Benjamin Cherry-Smith is an Associate Editor of E-International Relations and a Master of Arts Candidate at the University of the Sunshine Coast. His research primarily focuses on ontological security theory, foreign policy, national identity, and the development and protection of norms. He can be reached via twitter at @BenCherrySmith.

Covid Nationalism
Mark Juergensmeyer
Download PDF
Sep 6 2020 •

Matt Gush/Shutterstock


The Covid-19 pandemic has brought out the best and worst in people around the world. On the one hand, it has encouraged a sense of global citizenship that focuses on our common humanity and encourages the sharing of resources and information to combat the health crisis. On the other hand, it has strengthened authoritarian regimes and prompted the rise of a new kind of popularism. At the extreme edge of this surge of anti-restriction protests is the merger of virus conspiracy theories with defensive patriotism. It is this new phenomenon that might be called ‘Covid nationalism’.

After six months of lockdowns, quarantines, the closure of shops and bars, and the limitation on public mobility, large sections of populations around the world have understandably had enough. In late August in Germany, a huge crowd of young, angry and mostly males, many of them without masks or social distancing, stormed the streets of Berlin and attacked the parliament buildings. Nine hundred were arrested. Similar street protests were held in London and Zurich. In Melbourne, Australia and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, crowds not only protested the restrictions but claimed that the virus was a ‘scam’ created to spread fear falsely among the public.

Perhaps nowhere in the world has there been a greater backlash against the pandemic restrictions than in the United States. It is a resistance rooted in a deep-seated American individualism and fostered by the conspiratorial fantasies of the US President Donald Trump. Since April, anti-restriction protests have erupted in every state in the US. On 30 April 2020, a crowd of armed protestors entered the Michigan state capital and threatened lawmakers with automatic weapons. Other protests have been organized by a group called ‘Operation Gridlock’ that encourages protestors to use their automobiles and trucks to block off streets around public buildings. Many of the protestors wear red caps with the logo ‘Make America Great Again’ – the Make America Great Again (MAGA) hats of Trump supporters. These activists are protesting a new global threat, a virtually invisible one caused by tiny virus cells. Covid-19 is the new global enemy, imagined to be aided by those scientists, health professionals and public leaders who appear to conspire with the virus to vex the ordinary lives of angry white males with MAGA hats. More than a public nuisance, the restrictions created by Covid-19 are thought to be undermining the American way of life.

Covid-19 is a neologism created by shortening the phrase coronavirus disease 2019. Like SARS and the other coronaviruses, it is highly contagious. Because it was likely first transmitted to humans from live animals in Wuhan, China, it has been possible to link the disease with sinister foreign and global forces out to undermine the American way of life. The conspiracy theories regarding its origins and spread are ubiquitous. To a paranoid segment of the right-wing community in the US, these conspiracies have been linked to globalization. In these theories, the virus was the attempt of China, or the UN, or Microsoft founder Bill Gates, or 5G technology — or some other sinister force — to scare Americans and deprive them of their liberty. Rather than blaming the government for its ineptitude in allowing the virus to spread rapidly, making the US by far the most infected nation on the planet, the blame was placed on fictional foes.

Perhaps the most frightening of the imagined falsehoods has been the notion that the disease is not real, but a hoax perpetrated by clever liberals to sedate the populace. Hence those who held to this fiction could cavalierly ignore any of the recommended restrictions, crowding together in public and thereby endangering everyone else. Doctors treating some Covid-19 patients have had to contend with their arguments that they could not possibly have the disease since it was a hoax, and it didn’t actually exist. These fears and the anger over having been hampered by restrictive pandemic regulations have brought hordes of gun-toting angry white men and women out on the streets in protest. Before American cities erupted in demonstrations against police brutality, led largely by young Blacks and progressive whites, these white MAGA hat-wearing protestors had the media’s attention. They will likely return in force, especially if new restrictions are adopted when the predictable new waves of virus infection occur.


What is disturbing is the increasing nationalism of the protest rhetoric. This is especially true in the United States, where American flags and patriotic songs are part of the theatre of protest rallies. But it has also been the case in Melbourne, where the Australian national anthem was sung in an anti-restriction protest, and in Berlin where German flags were part of the visual drama of protest events. In the United States, the nationalism of the protest movements has been increasingly associated with racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump and his followers insist on speaking of the ‘China virus’ or the ‘Wuhan virus’ rather than simply the ‘coronavirus’. The response has been a rising anti-Asian sentiment in the country that has led to attacks on people of Asian ancestry. In May, CBS news reported that there had been over two thousand such attacks around the country, including physical assaults. Mexicans and Muslims have also been targeted with the imagined fear that they are bringing the virus into the country with them, despite the fact that the US percentage of virus infection is much higher than in Mexico or virtually any Muslim country.

Yet this racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric helps to shore up a sense of xenophobic nationalism that had been a part of the public discourse in pre-pandemic days. Only a few months ago some of the same MAGA-hat wearing protestors were on a somewhat different nationalist crusade. At that time the perceived global assault on American nationalism was economic — entangling trade alliances that were touted as taking away American jobs — or forms of cultural globalization aimed at undermining the American way of life. The perception that there was a global cultural assault on nationalism was easy to imagine since the evidence of it was closely at hand. After all, waves of new immigrants from non-European countries entered the United States in recent decades, some illegally. They were easy to marginalize since they were different from white Euro-Americans, not only ethnically but in some cases by their religion. Worst of all were those who were Muslim.

But the new pictures of virtually the same angry white males with MAGA hats show them protesting against Muslims or Mexicans not just because of their ethnicity or religion, but also because they are perceived to be bearers of the virus and the cause of the restrictions. Early on in the pandemic, Trump was stating that the threat of Mexican-born virus was a new reason to increase border security and gain funding for his much-touted border wall. It appears that the resentment over the global pandemic and its restrictions has joined forces with right-wing populist rage. The racist and anti-immigrant cultural nationalism of recent years has found an ally in an angry nationalism that is equally anti-global and defensive, a Covid nationalism. The culture wars and the animosity against immigrants, refugees, and Muslims have merged with the individualist nationalism that protests against the Covid-19 restrictions

Whether or not Covid nationalism will be the prime vessel of anti-global xenophobic nationalism in the future is a question that is not easy to answer. It largely depends on the future of the pandemic. The optimistic scenario is that the worst is over, that the rate of infections around the world will continue to decline, national and global economies will slowly re-emerge and a vaccine will be found to be effective by the end of the year. In this scenario, the current fears may subside in the re-emergence of normalization. And the old forms of cultural nationalism and its disdain against immigrants and minorities may again surface. Or perhaps by then, they will have been forgotten.


But the optimistic scenario is not the likely one. The possibility is real that there will be waves of new infections and with them new restrictions for at least a year or more to come. The greatly anticipated vaccine may be years off, and perhaps not discovered for decades. There is still no vaccine for HIV/AIDS, for example, though it has become a managed disease. Perhaps the same could be the case with Covid-19. The world could learn to live with it, though many of the health restrictions would continue to be in place. This means that resentment against the restrictions will continue. The conspiracy theories are likely to proliferate, and the sense that the luxurious independent ways of life are being corroded by sinister global forces may expand. Covid nationalism could be a major element of the continuing right-wing populism of the future. But that does not mean that cultural nationalism will be forgotten. We may see the generation of even more conspiracy theories — similar to those already propagated — that blame immigrants, minorities, liberals, foreign interference and global forces for the pandemic and its restrictive assault on familiar daily life. Thus, the two forms of populism could forge an even deeper unhappy alliance.

At present Covid nationalism — the populist protest against an imagined global intrusion of pandemic restrictions — is largely but not solely an American phenomenon. Like the virus itself, it easily spreads across borders and has become a feature of angry segments of the populace in Europe and other parts of the globe. There, too, it has merged with existing anti-immigrant cultural nationalism. The global emergence of Covid nationalism is the perfect storm of the future.

Mark Juergensmeyer is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Global Studies and the founding director of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is author of over twenty books including Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (2009). Twitter @juergensmeyer

Further Reading on E-International Relations
https://www.e-ir.info/

ALTERNATIVE THEORY
Serbian Virologist Dr. Ana Gligic: There won't be another wave, coronavirus will go away, but then reappear "Such viruses occur epidemically every four to seven years. First, the epidemic of Covid-19 in circulation must be extinguished, and only then can another wave appear after a few years," 

Printscreen: TV Prva

Coronavirus has so far claimed more than 700 lives in Serbia, while officially, about 32,000 people have been infected. The epidemiological situation is now more stable, but doctors are warning that it is important for citizens to respect all preventive measures in order to stop a new increase in the number of cases.

Well-known virologist Dr. Ana Gligic, who was the head of the laboratory at the Torlak Institute during a smallpox outbreak (in the early 70s), has told the daily Politika that after all, we will not have another wave of the coronavirus epidemic, but only peaks, and stressed that Covid-19 has shown that some the rules that apply to similar infections do not apply to it at all.

"We won't get rid of it so easily. There are only two options: either here will be herd immunity or a vaccine, in order to reduce it to the minimum possible degree," Dr. Gligic thinks.

When asked when the second wave is expected to appear, she said that there will be none.

"There will only be peaks. Such viruses occur epidemically every four to seven years. First, the epidemic of Covid-19 in circulation must be extinguished, and only then can another wave appear after a few years. Coronavirus will not stay in this form it has now form forever, it will go away. And then it will reappear. We don't know whether it will be of epidemic or pandemic character then," she said.

She added that this virus constantly surprises us, which is why everything is unpredictable.

"As soon as Covid-19 appeared, I said, 'It will stay because it was created and survived in nature'. When you 'mess' with nature it's like you've upset the hornet's nest. The virus woke up and we can hardly get rid of it. Those who advocate the thesis that it will disappear must know that this can only happen if something happens in nature, without our influence. What we are doing is just repairing the consequences that it has caused. Coronavirus is not from yesterday. It's been around, there somewhere, for a long time. But it gained these proportions due to the influence of the external environment. Suddenly, something we didn't pay attention to went wild. I wonder about many things, but projects must be done in order to explain everything with certainty," said the virologist.

She stressed that this is a natural hotbed of viral infection, but she distanced herself from the thesis that the virus originated in China.

"The question is whether all this came from China. There are theories that it originated in a laboratory from which it was intentionally 'released' or whic it 'escaped'. I don't agree with that, although such a possibility exists. I only believe the evidence. A scientist who would prove something like that would probably win the Nobel Prize," Dr. Ana pointed out.
Protection - flu vaccine

The doctor stressed that it is extremely important to receive the flu vaccine.

"Be sure to get the flu vaccine. This is important because a person can be attacked by both the flu and coronavirus at the same time. It's terrible if two infections are found in the same organism. In particular, the elderly will not be able to withstand that," she warned.

She pointed out that there have been cases when people respected all the measures and protected themselves, and still got infected with coronavirus.

"People did not communicate with anyone, they did not leave the house, nor did anyone come to see them, yet they became infected with Covid-19. We can link that with the thesis that I presented in March, that coronavirus is transmitted by air," concluded Dr. Gligic.

VIDEO: Kon: In July, coronavirus flared up thanks to sporting events, celebrations, elections and protests
https://www.telegraf.rs/13838afa-be47-474e-b07c-a998fd8d162c

(Telegraf.rs)

STORIES FOR YOU
Dr. Ana Gligic, who fought a smallpox epidemic in 1972, warns: "Yes, virus can be inhaled"

Dr. Stevanovic's appeal: Don't try to cure yourself at home, see a doctor, examination is key

Doctor Gojkovic: Yes, unfortunately, a large number of coronavirus victims in Serbia were obese

John McEnroe famously screamed 'You cannot be serious!' 38 years ago today

By Sam Pearce 22/06/19



John McEnroe is known as a tennis legend, not only for his championship-laden career, but also his controversial antics on the court.

Never afraid to inform the umpire that he felt they had made a wrong call, it was on this day 38 years ago that he provided arguably the most memorable moment of his career and possibly in the sport itself.


McEnroe had already become well known for his short temper and been nicknamed 'Superbrat' by the press when he faced Tom Gullikson in the first round of the 1981 Wimbledon championship.


He became irate when umpire Edward James ruled that his serve went out, initially barking "Excuse me?" before launching into a tirade after James explained his decision.

"You can't be serious man, you cannot be serious!" he screamed to the shock of the watching crowd.

"That ball was on the line, chalk flew up!" he continued. "It was clearly in, how can you possibly call that out? How many are you going to miss?

"He's walking over, everyone knows it's in, this whole stadium and you call it out? Explain that to me, will you? You guys are the absolute pits of the world!"

McEnroe was docked a point for his outburst and later fined $1,500 and threatened with disqualification, even though the crowd eventually applauded his complaints and replays appeared to show that he was right.

Despite the controversy, he went on to win the tournament, defeating Bjorn Borg in an epic final to claim the first of three Wimbledon titles in four years.


"You cannot be serious!" became an iconic phrase associated with the American and was also the title of his 2002 autobiography.

He described the outburst as “a scream that came straight from Queens in my native New York, but that has travelled very far in the years since."

It may be almost 40 years to the day since McEnroe famously lost his cool, but watching it is still undoubtedly as entertaining as ever.

Different rules apply to Federer and Djokovic: Here is what happens when Roger hits ball boy!

The Swiss did not even receive a warning because of this incident 

HOW SERBIAN MEDIA SEES DJOKOVIC RULING

WILL TRUMP PARDON HIM ONLY MELANIA KNOWS

• 
  

Photo: AP/Tanjug/swissgenius

The tennis world is still in shock after the scandalous decision by the US Open tournament to disqualify Novak Djokovic after he accidentally hit a lineswoman with the ball during his match against Pablo Carreno Busta. The rules in these situations can obviously be applied arbitrarily, and the decision of the US Open was the most drastic possible - a disqualification.

We already had an example in New York about ten days ago, when Slovenian tennis player Alijaz Bedene received only a warning after he hit a cameraman with the ball. Cameramen and ball boys  and girls are at the same level as referees when it comes to getting hit by balls, but Bedene was lucky to hit a normal person, one who did not make drama about it and accepted that he was hit accidentally.

Roger Federer had a similar situation a few years ago at the Australian Open, when he hit the ball boy in the head. However, he was not even warned then, let alone anything more than that!

Disqualification was not even considered, while the situation with Novak was completely different.

Although Novak did not hit the ball with full force, but wanted to return it to those collecting balls standing outside the court, he accidentally, without looking, hit the line referee in the head, who then produced an Oscar-worthy performance. She acted as if she was having a heart attack and was unable to breathe, and created drama that forced a medical team to intervene.

After that and a ten-minute discussion, the tournament organizers decided to disqualify Novak.

Take a look at what it looked like when Federer hit a child standing next to the court, rather than a 50+ woman, and how after that he just laughed and continued to play, without receiving any warning.

The rules, obviously, are not the same for everyone!

VIDEO: Trump and Vucic talked about Novak at the White House two days before Djokovic was disqualified

https://www.telegraf.rs/4a8d70ad-a513-4af1-8711-95fb661c7feb

If you want to watch the video in high resolution, please turn off your Ad Blocker

0:33

(Telegraf.rs)