COVID-19 and the failure of Populism

For years I have defined the populist agenda as presenting simple answers to complex questions which in the end prove to be no answers at all.

It has taken a pandemic to prove me right, and I take no pleasure at all that the shambolic approach to the Coronavirus crisis by the two major populist leaders in the Western world has wreaked havoc on their populations and probably cost lives.

United States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson must face the consequences for their failure to listen to medical advice, for acting too slowly, and for adopting measures and attitudes that have patently proved to be wrong.

I will be fair and say that more traditional approaches have initially failed to stem the virus’s march in countries as different as Iran and Italy. Only by adopting draconian measures that would be unthinkable in the West has China shown some success in getting COVID-19 under control.

Elsewhere we still have a long way to go — and the missteps by the US and UK Governments may well make the path to recovery that more difficult.

In his excellent summary of the Trump Administration’s failures, Australian academic Nicholas Morieson says the President refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the crisis until an abrupt about face on March 12.

“He not only resisted taking any drastic measures to fight the virus, but actively downplayed the danger it posed, claiming COVID-19 was fake news spread by his political adversaries in the Democratic Party and the media designed to prevent his re-election,” Morieson writes.  

Now, of course, the tune has dramatically changed, with Trump suddenly claiming the country was at war with “an invisible enemy” and calling for the nation to face the threat until “total victory” was achieved.

Since then, he is beginning to claim the enemy is not so invisible, renaming COVID-19 the “China virus”, a virtual encouragement to his more rabid supporters to bombard the internet with conspiracy theories, drowning out any criticism of his own blunders.

In the UK Johnson was ready with his own solution to COVID-19, initially introducing the theory of ‘herd immunity’, allowing the virus to spread slowly, letting a lot of people get sick and recover, thus eventually building up immunity.

What Johnson didn’t seem to grasp was that most people did not want to risk their loved ones and themselves being the minority who inevitably did not recover and died.

US Virologist Akiko Iwasaki quickly pointed out that herd immunity usually works when there is a vaccination available administered under controlled circumstances.

“You don’t rely on the very deadly infectious agent to create an immune population,” she said.

Like Trump, Johnson was quickly back-peddling, claiming he only wanted to try and “flatten the curve” of COVID-19 so health services would not be overwhelmed.

However, he was forced to admit that “herd immunity is not our goal or policy”.

Both the US and the UK are now pursuing traditional measures to deal with the outbreak, but they have arrived at them at a much later stage than the rest of the world. As a result their populations are likely to suffer more, over a longer period.

Their simple answers to complex questions have proved abject failures.

The dangers of ignoring Idlib

With the relentless spread of Coronavirus dominating the world’s attention many important world events are slipping under the radar – including the continuing tragedy in Syria’s Idlib Province, which some see as the last act in the country’s nine-year civil war.

They may be optimistic. The remaining rebel fighters have been re-supplied by their ally, Turkey and have blunted the Syrian advance. In addition Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sent his own forces into the province which have spasmodically duelled with their Syrian counterparts.

At present a truce, brokered by Turkey and Syrian ally Russia, is supposed to be in place, but like so many similar agreements in the past, it is constantly being violated.

In the last few days President Erdogan announced that his forces had destroyed eight Russian-made Pantsir-S1 surface-to-air missile systems, while reports on the ground seem to confirm that fighting, albeit at a lower intensity, is continuing.    

Turkish journalist and political analyst, Abdullah Ayasun says under current conditions a lasting truce is unattainable, pointing to a statement by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that he still intends to exert his regime’s control over the entire Idlib Province.

‘The truce has been declared many times before and collapsed prematurely due to the competing agendas and conflicting goals of the warring sides on the ground,” Ayasun says.

“Turkey cannot back down from its declared goal of thwarting the fall of Idlib and preventing a refugee exodus toward its borders, and Syria cannot abandon this latest stage of its longstanding aim to reunite Syria by clearing Idlib of the remaining rebel forces.

“This makes another confrontation inevitable.”

It also makes for a very dangerous game played by both sides. Erdogan would like to gain full control of Idlib, which could then be used to resettle some of the millions of Syrian refugees he is hosting. His forces could easily achieve this if Damascus was the only enemy, but also taking on Russia is a different matter.

Assad must calculate just how far Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to go to support him, especially if what Moscow sees as a reasonable permanent peace can be negotiated.

Putin has to consider the consequences of an all-out war against NATO member Turkey, especially given the volatility of United States President Donald Trump is likely to increase as that country’s election nears.

With the world’s attention — and many of its resources — diverted elsewhere, a sudden escalation of tensions in this perennial hotspot could easily spin out of control.

EU adjusts to a post-Brexit world

There is no doubt that the departure of the United Kingdom has shaken the European Union to the core.

Five years ago the complacent bureaucracy in Brussels was utterly confident Brexit would never happen. Three years ago, with the Brexit vote in place and leave negotiations under way, hubris was replaced by panic.

There was then a belief that the UK’s actions would be followed by others: Grexit (Greece) and Polexit (Poland) were widely tipped as the front-runners. Right-wing anti-EU movements in France and Germany were energised.

The EU’s arch foe, Nigel Farage was confidently predicting the EU would collapse and Europe would “revert to sovereign nations trading among themselves”.

Today the mood has changed again. The UK’s drawn-out and chaotic exit has given critics on the continent pause. No-one is serious about following Britain out of the door anymore, and even the most trenchant critics are talking about reform rather than dismantlement.

It is reform that is occupying the minds both of senior EU officials and leaders of member nations. The changes being considered take in foreign affairs, business and defence — and whether the bloc is ready to resume enlargement with applicant countries in the Balkans.

There is a new realism pervading the capitals of the continent, as highlighted by French President Emmanuel Macron who is calling for “a renewal of the European approach — we no longer live in the world of the 1990s”. 

Following Brexit and the fact that in Donald Trump, the EU faces the first United President who is openly hostile to it, there is a feeling that Brussels’ foreign policy must toughen up to meet the changed circumstances.

For years it has relied on soft power diplomacy to spread its influence in the world, basing it on economic and development aid (as an example the EU is one of the largest aid donors in the Pacific region, after Australia) as well as promoting cultural ties and human rights.

That is no longer seen as sufficient in a more hard-edged, aggressive world. As EU Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security, Josep Borrell said recently: “We Europeans must adjust our mental maps to deal with the world as it is, not as we hoped it would be.  

“To avoid being the losers in today’s US-China competition, we must relearn the language of power."

That has revived talk of some form of EU defence force, possibly drawn from the ranks of member countries’ militaries, ready to come together at short notice to deal with a crisis.

That will be challenging, especially without the UK’s undoubted military clout, and with a budget already under strain from other areas, such as the Green Deal Project that targets the EU becoming climate neutral by 2050.

One area where Brussels may well decide to flex its muscles is in the current talks with the UK on a post-Brexit trade deal.

There is growing irritation over the bluster emanating from some UK Government Ministers, with a curt suggestion from EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier that the UK “cut the rhetoric”.

There is also a feeling that Barnier is not going to jump through hoops to get a deal done by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s self-imposed deadline of December 31.

“Brexit has not gone away,” he warned.

How this plays out will only become clear as negotiations ramp up in coming months through what could well be an angry summer of discontent.