Friday News Roundup — February 11, 2022
Friday greetings from Washington, D.C., where the focus continues to be on inflation, covid, and supply chains — and how their complex interrelation. High inflation numbers continue to define politics and perception of the economy heading towards the midterms. While Covid mandates appear to be relaxing as Omicron ebbs, the politics of Covid aren’t going away yet. Across the border to the north, the Canadian trucker blockades disrupt vital economic links, particularly affecting the auto industry, and adding more overall stress to supply chains.
This comes as tensions continue to increase with Moscow, and we cover that more in Joshua’s and Wes’s respective analyses of British and French diplomatic efforts.
Before we get to that, in this week’s book review for the Diplomatic Courier, Joshua read “How Civil Wars Start” by Barbara Walter. In practice, “How Civil Wars Start” was two books in one — the first a deep and interesting analysis of the origin of civil strife, but the second was a hyperbolic argument about the pending collapse of the United States. In The Hill, Ethan decries the scope of Presidential War Powers as tensions rise with Russia and operations continue in the Middle East.
In addition to updates on London’s and Paris’s outreach to Moscow, Dan looks at the message of the Beijing Olympics and dueling systems in great power competition. Ethan questions how we’re looking at hypersonic development, and Evelyn looks at legislation on teaching about American history and race.
Olympic Politics Demonstrate a Challenging Global Stage
Dan Mahaffee
With a Uyghur athlete joining in the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Beijing Winter Olympic Opening Ceremonies, the message was clear — the Chinese Communist Party was not only demonstrating its indifference to global outrage, but also its ability to coerce its citizens and create its own “reality.” Using the Olympic Games as a stage for geopolitics is hardly new. The geopolitical history of the games is an arc spanning the 1936 Berlin Games to the tensions of the Cold War games to even the contrast between the China of the 2008 games and those today. The Olympic motto of “faster, higher, stronger” is just as applicable to countries competing on the global stage. While the International Olympic Committee (IOC) amended the motto in 2021 to read “faster, higher, stronger — together”, the tenor of these games suggests anything but togetherness in an era of great power competition. Indeed it can tell us much about how we should approach this strategic competition.
The return of geopolitics to the games is a stark contrast to the largely corporate and cultural event the games had become in the post-Cold War era. For sponsors and broadcasters, the Olympic Games of the 1990s-2010s were feel-good events — and well suited to an era of TV-focused audiences. Human interest stories about athletes and reporters mingling with locals — all with plenty of advertising from official sponsors in and around the games and on air — reflected the spirit of unbridled globalization. The money spent on broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and endorsements was, however, also a contrast to the white elephant projects and debts incurred by local organizers — setting the stage for where only authoritarians can afford hosting the games, fiscally and politically. The corporate sponsors — much as is the case with their China business more broadly — are carefully treading a line between their support for the games and their interests in China with the broader political tensions and international outrage over human rights atrocities.
The sense of interaction and togetherness of these games is of course limited by the CCP’s COVID bubble approach, fitting with the party’s strict adherence to a zero-Covid strategy. In many ways, the already dystopian requirements of disease control hide how truly authoritarian these games would feel, but the strict nature of the anti-COVID measures is also itself a demonstration by China of the superiority of its policies. This is important as Xi Jinping moves towards a third term in office unprecedented since Mao. A key CCP mantra is that the zero-Covid strategy, as drastic and disruptive as some lockdowns have been, has prevented greater economic disruption and death tolls like those in the United States or India. Less is said about the poorer performance of China’s vaccines and the precarious state of its still-underdeveloped healthcare system.
This is where the Olympics has become a display of how systems can respond to global challenges while competing for leadership and influence. While some find the ski slope amongst a decommissioned steel plant’s cooling towers a dystopian scene — where many automatically assume cooling tower = nuclear reactor — Beijing intended it as a display of its environmental policies, shutting down heavy industry to move to cleaner, greener purposes. Yes, there is legitimate and deserved Chinese pride in shutting down one of the Beijing area’s most notorious sources of pollution and broader efforts to address rampant environmental degradation and pollution. It is a message to the world that China is able to tackle global challenges.
That is why our own approach to this competition should be like that of our U.S. team Olympic heroes: to push ourselves and our country to move “faster, higher, and stronger” to meet challenges at home and abroad. The examples of the athletes themselves tell us all we need to know about the competition between these systems. Yes, many American athletes are also soft-power celebrities, especially dream teams, but many also reflect hard work, dedication, and how talent is best rewarded in free enterprise. We have pride in their victories and sympathy for their failures — so too must we learn from these recent setbacks to our society and democracy and focus on strengthening our future competitiveness.
But I also have sympathy for our competitors, many in their teens, pawns of their system. Russia’s 15-year old star skater, Kamila Valieva, is under a cloud of scandal following a positive doping test, where blame should reside with her coaches and the continued corruption of Russian athletics. Another star, Eileen Gu, forced at age 18 to navigate tensions over her Chinese and American heritage, made her choice to compete with the Chinese team. While that choice may not dull the luster of her medal, the system she is in is clearly dark: the first interview made available after her victory was not with an Olympic broadcaster or open media, rather the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection — the CCP’s anti-corruption body.
The United Kingdom & the Ukraine Crisis
Joshua C. Huminski
The United Kingdom has taken a fairly aggressive and forward leaning approach in the present Ukraine crisis, dispatching arms to Kyiv and deploying personnel to Poland and Eastern Europe to buttress the NATO alliance. That this is the case is not surprising for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the UK struggling to find a role in Europe in a post-Brexit world and the UK’s own domestic troubles.
In the case of the former, the long-running saga of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is leaving London without a voice and presence in European affairs. While it is arguable how much influence London had in Brussels while it was part of the EU, it was considerably more than the precisely naught influence it has now as a result of the Brexit vote. The NATO alliance remains London’s only real measure of influence on the continent. Hence, this is why, to some degree, London appears to be far more forward leaning, vocal, and engaged than it otherwise might have been in the past.
This is part and parcel of the country’s struggle to find a role and strategy in the world writ large. London would appear to be pursuing an almost Sir Julian Corbett-like approach to strategy, by focusing on a maritime-first approach, which would necessitate a smaller numerical ground footprint. Yet, London has not and is not resourcing either the Royal Navy or the British Army to support either, and finding itself without the forces or capability to operate a maritime or continental strategy. Successive governments have hacked and slashed at defense spending and personnel numbers, yet concurrently increased the demands on the forces. Here, the size of the British forces matter, especially as it struggles to mobilize and deploy forces in the face of Moscow’s aggression.
There is no small irony in the fact that the British government published its lengthy and long-awaited Integrated Defense and Security Review, only to find itself in the midst of a very traditional hard power challenge. The Integrated Review, for the first time, sought to provide a holistic view of the UK’s approach to the world, especially in a post-Brexit environment. Notably, the Review suggested that the UK should pivot toward the Indo-Pacific, a policy move that was later backed by the deployment of an aircraft carrier to the region. The Review also stated that the British Army would be drawn down to 72,500 troops by 2025 (from roughly 82,000 today) and shift towards more high-tech warfare.
The consequences of this drawdown, which preceded the Review, are being felt today as London seeks to mobilize forces to augment NATO in Eastern Europe. This week London agreed to deploy 350 troops to Poland as a demonstration of support for Warsaw (on top of the 100 engineers already sent in December of last year), and is reportedly preparing to mobilize an additional 1,000 troops in the event of a refugee crisis resulting from Russia’s expanded invasion. As of the end of January, there are roughly 1,150 UK troops in Eastern Europe. Given the size of the British Army, this is not an insignificant mobilization of frontline troops. At the same time, the UK has supplied Ukraine with anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and is, reportedly, supplying anti-ship missiles, as well.
The deployments are alongside a fairly forward diplomatic effort by the UK government. Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallace, is set to travel to Moscow to meet with Russia’s Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, later this week. He started the week meeting after hosting his Polish counterpart, Mariusz Blaszczak, in London on 7 February. Warsaw is in talks with Kyiv in London about forming a tripartite partnership to increase regional security.
The Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, met her counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in Moscow today. The Truss-Lavrov meeting is not reported to have gone well. Lavrov told a press conference that “I’m honestly disappointed that what we have is a conversation between a dumb and a deaf person…Our most detailed explanations fell on unprepared soil.” He added, “They say Russia is waiting until the ground freezes like a stone so its tanks can easily cross into Ukrainian territory. I think the ground was like that today with our British colleagues, from which numerous facts that we produced bounced off.”
Unsurprisingly, Lavrov is reported to have told the UK the Kremlin has “no plans to invade Ukraine”. Truss for her part added, “there is still time for Russia to end its aggression towards Ukraine and pursue the path of diplomacy”. Responding to Lavrov’s barbs, she said, “I certainly wasn’t mute in our discussions earlier. I put forward the UK’s point of view on the current situation as well as seeking to deter Russia from an invasion of Ukraine.”
Lavrov’s fairly undiplomatic language shouldn’t be surprising as he is notorious for speaking in that manner. It could also well be that he didn’t like what he heard and was, in turn, lashing out at Truss. All politics, including diplomacy, is theatre, so this isn’t really out of the ordinary.
That said, Truss did not exactly comport herself well in the discussions. She was reportedly asked, “Do you recognize Russia’s sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh oblasts?” She replied that she “never” would, before being informed by the UK ambassador that both oblasts are not part of Ukraine. She later said that it had been a misunderstanding.
There is some commentary that this gaffe partially reflects the quality of the cabinet itself and British politics today, which is itself another reason for the UK’s more forward-leaning approach in the present crisis. Without going into excruciating detail, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is under increasing political pressure for what is being called “party gate” — allegations that 10 Downing Street was hosting parties whilst telling the country to lockdown due to Covid. The Prime Minister’s supporters are rapidly looking for an exit, leaving him with little political support in parliament and not the best of choices when it comes to his cabinet. Undoubtedly there is a bit of political theatre for Johnson himself who, one could imagine, would love nothing more than to be seen as a wartime PM like his idol, Winston Churchill.
Political distractions aside, interest in maintaining relevance carries with it risks. If the UK is unable to meet its commitments or actually offer up substance and heft, it will be left looking worse off than when it started, and further struggling to define for itself a role in the international community.
A Glimmer of Hope or More of the Same: Emmanuel Macron’s Peace Mission
Wes Culp
French President Emmanuel Macron’s trips to Moscow and Kyiv were the main events of this week’s attempts to find a solution to the continuing crisis surrounding Russia’s military buildup on its border with Ukraine. Following his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Macron immediately flew to Kyiv, where he met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. While no definitive resolution appears to have been reached on Moscow’s crisis of pressure on Ukraine, all parties expressed wishes to continue dialogue.
Macron is the first Western European head of state to visit Moscow to date since the beginning of the current crisis. Monday’s meeting between the French and Russian presidents was preceded by a phone conversation between the two heads of state on February 3. In their pre-meeting statements, Macron and Putin both mentioned France’s history of taking a mediatory role in several recent crises in the former Soviet Union. President Putin chose to highlight France’s role in developing the 2014 Minsk Protocols and the Normandy Contact Group (Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France) pertaining to the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine. Russian negotiators frequently point to total implementation of the second Minsk ceasefire agreement as a means to end the conflict in Ukraine. This approach enjoys Russian support in large part due to the fact that the second Minsk agreement was negotiated when Ukraine’s position was much weaker.
The joint press conference held by Presidents Macron and Putin following their meeting revealed that Russia remains steadfast in its demands that Ukraine be forbidden from joining NATO. In their readouts, both Presidents agreed that reductions in tensions were in the interest of both Paris and Moscow. While Putin reiterated that the American response to his government’s security guarantee proposals “disregarded” the central elements of Moscow’s demands, President Macron declared his interest in building security guarantees and the foundations of a new “stability order” in Europe jointly with Russia in the form of new security and stability “mechanisms.” The nature of these mechanisms was left undefined, but nonetheless showed that Macron framed the crisis in similar terms to Putin.
At times during press conference President Putin replied sharply to questions from the press in ways which raised more questions than they answered. Asked whether Russia would invade Ukraine, Putin replied that greater danger would come from Ukrainian NATO membership, which would directly precipitate military confrontation between Russia and the Alliance. He also appeared to equate a hypothetical decision by NATO to admit Ukraine to a NATO desire for military conflict with Russia. In addition, Western analysts claimed that Putin used a sexual assault analogy to describe his policy aims vis-à-vis Ukraine and the implementation of the Minsk agreements. President Putin used the phrase “Like it or don’t like it, you must put up with it, my beauty. Otherwise, it won’t work” (Нравится — не нравится, терпи, моя красавица. Надо исполнять, по-другому не получится). However, Russian viewers and journalists disputed this interpretation by noting that the phrase could be in reference to lines from songs by the Russian punk band “Krasnaya Plesen’” or singer Elena Vaenga. Russian Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov disputed that Putin was referencing “Krasnaya Plesen’,” and claimed that Putin was actually referencing a story from Russian folklore. Regardless of Putin’s phrasing, the comments did show that Putin and the Russian government have not budged in their belief that full implementation of the Minsk agreements in terms favorable to Russia was the only path forward out of the crisis.
Immediately following his meeting Putin in Moscow, President Macron flew to Kyiv to meet with Ukrainian President Zelensky on Wednesday. In Kyiv, Macron emphasized that he had not gone to Moscow expecting a breakthrough in negotiations, but expressed faith that his efforts had staved off further escalation. Zelensky told Macron that he and his government were committed to the Minsk Protocols but were hesitant to trust Russian assurances. Kremlin Press Secretary Peskov said that Zelensky’s words were a “positive signal,” but questioned Ukraine’s previous commitment to agreements.
President Macron’s peace mission to Moscow and Kyiv succeeded in elevating Europe’s role in a crisis that Moscow has generally seen as between the United States and Russia at its core. While it is too early to tell whether Macron’s shuttle diplomacy will prove to be valuable in deescalating tensions surrounding Russia’s buildup of military forces on its border with Ukraine, it does appear to have changed the character of the crisis’ diplomacy. Through his meetings, Macron has started to move Europe’s role in the crisis away from simply debating how to best support Ukraine, to how to sustainably put tensions to rest. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s upcoming February 15 visit to Moscow will determine whether Europe will continue to take an active role in defusing the crisis, or if Macron’s mission was a one-off. Time will also tell whether Putin’s participation in his meeting with Macron was pragmatic and serious, or cynical and opportunistic. As Russia’s buildup continues, pressure will build on Western leaders to seek a durable settlement that will stave off a Russian attempt to impose its security demands by force.
Are we thinking about hypersonics wrong?
Ethan Brown
In the defense neighborhood this week, representatives from the Pentagon met with executive leaders from the defense industry to discuss constraints to the development of hypersonic weapons, aimed at outpacing China’s capability which intelligence suggests vastly exceeds U.S. capacity at this moment. The conference, while unclassified, was demonstrative of an increased focus by the DoD to bolster development of this weapons technology, chaired by Deputy Secretary Kathleen Hicks and various other key leaders, including a brief drop-in by SECDEF Lloyd Austin.
Predictably, the constraints covered were on the topics of acquisition barriers, the pending budget crunch DoD is expecting in the coming 24 months, and the need to expand test facilities for developing this capability. The meeting is notable because an exchange between the Secretary’s office and industry leaders is exceptionally rare, after all, there is an entire industry of think tanks who specialize in bridging gaps between policy principals and other influential groups. Thus, the event should serve as noteworthy for its occurrence, and ditto the topic of discussion, whose warfighting application is considered by many to be the hallmark of the new paradigm of warfare between great power and regional aggressors.
But one question, it should be asked, is whether or not the push to rapidly develop hypersonics isn’t primarily reactionary, owing to the media flurry associated with Russian and Chinese hypersonic launches. One great critique abounding in the policy community (not least of all being the miltwitter universe) is that constructed arguments about decisions, actions, and indeed, funded programs of record are often reactionary to the passions of the current environment. Exhibit a) Ukraine, and the United States sending more troops to Europe as a result of Russian activities in the region; Exhibit b) approving Patriot missile shipments to Taiwan in recent weeks as reunification rhetoric from Beijing grows each day [why weren’t Patriot missile launches approved sooner?]; Exhibit c) hypersonic missiles need to be incorporated into the still in-flux defense budget to account for China’s capabilities.
Looking at historical parallels, weapons capabilities often determine ‘winners’ based on who is able to endure the costs of warmachine innovation, rather than actually trading lives and equipment in these next-generation competitions. Hypersonics are prohibitive, because they are expensive, a key point that was brought up during the principals discussion this week at the Pentagon. Something worth mentioning here is in regards to the will to fight, in essence, the price a state is willing to pay in conflict to achieve political ends. Price tags are one (very important) component of that metric.
For example, in the Cold War, the Soviet system understood that despite its best efforts, no aircraft originating from the USSR could outgun, outrun, or outperform Maj. John Boyd’s manifestation of the Energy-Maneuverability Theory, which combines factors of thrust, weight, drag, wing area and flight characteristics into the summative ideal balance in order to produce a perfect (aerial) killing machine. The result: the F-16 and F-15, who have gone on to dominate air space ever since, at least until 5th-gen aircraft came into the fray. But the E-M principle remains the guiding beacon for aircraft development. Conversely, our Soviet adversaries just built bigger, faster, but less capable aircraft. Also, the communist economy simply couldn’t compete with democratic industrialized output.
So what then was the answer to counter western aircraft supremacy? A concept that still exists today in many of the anti-western locales: air defense superiority. North Korea and Iran each boast some of the most robust and lethal air-defense architectures in the world, enough so that the price of defeating those surface-to-air networks — though achievable — would yield brutal casualties for an American intervention. When I say ‘achievable’, I reference a discussion I had with a former unit commander of mine several years ago who worked on the North Korean counter-invasion plans during an early tenure of his career as an F-15 pilot; in short, “what would I need to defeat DPRK air defenses? The Air Force. I would need The United States Air Force.”
That was a long, but necessary aside to the topic of hypersonic weapons development, and the ultimate query of this column. Is it necessary for the DoD to divest is soon to be constricted budget towards building out a robust hypersonic glide vehicle inventory, because Beijing and Moscow have them, or does it make more sense to double-down on methods of defeating and defending critical infrastructure and resources and seeking advantage in other domains (space, cyber) that might help render HGV’s less influential? Again, in history, weapons capability tends to favor the defense, at least in lateral confrontation. Certainly, in today’s potential war locales, combat will be anything but lateral, but the simple math is a robust defense largely renders a myopic offensive system less final.
NATO is already trending in the direction of defeating advance strike capabilities from adversaries, notably the move to expand missile defense (which includes next-gen aircraft) emanating from Russia. As mentioned, Taiwan is the beneficiary of increased missile defense packages, part of an ongoing dramatic escalation between Washington and Beijing. But therein lies a possible key indicator of the efficacy of missile defense over expensive missile offense: Why would a defensive missile capability raise China’s ire to such levels? It’s because defeating a capability is an advantage when the adversary worked so hard to create that advantage in the first place.
This isn’t to suggest that the U.S. shouldn’t proceed with making hypersonics a reality, the program has been in development for years, and is a credible vector for defense industries to pursue. But ushering in a new arms race that learned zero lessons from the Cold War isn’t the answer to credibly deterring China and its hegemonic ambitions. Opening up and building a capabilities gap in other domains like Space, chiefly, while holding onto continued conventional hard power options that coincide with soft power efforts like the recent Olympics diplomatic boycott are components to this increasingly complex calculus. Thinking about hypersonics as an end-all solution, rather than efforts to simply defeat them, however, should not be the guiding principle here.
Critical Race and Gender Theory Making an Impact on American Schools
Evelyn Jimenez
As we continue into Black History month, the controversy of “critical race theory” being taught in public schools is on the rise, and the issue promises to be a major topic in the 2022 election. The past year has produced legislation at the federal and state levels specifying what content American schools should and should not be teaching.
The African American History Act
This past December, Rep. Jammal Bowman (D-NY) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) announced that they will be collaborating on the development of the African American History Act. The aim of this bill is centered around preserving African American history in the American educational system. To do so, the bill would require public schools (K-12) to implement new training for faculty and course requirements surrounding concepts of critical race and gender theory. The new training would allow teachers and administrators to know how to properly approach sensitive and controversial topics such as racism, sexism, and systemic inequality. The bill’s sponsors contend that students will become exposed to the realities of American history — sometimes gruesome — that have been brushed over before. Rep. Bowman advocates that “From the moment Africans were forcefully brought to the Americas as enslaved peoples and the segregation of our society to the economic and agricultural redlining of entire Black communities and the efforts to suppress our vote, it is on us to tell the truth about our entire history”. Parents will also be informed and have access to the new material being taught in their children’s classrooms — addressing a key complaint voiced by some conservative voices.
The developing bill has already gained popularity and support from the House of Representatives, and just last week, a newer version drafted by Senator Booker was introduced in the Senate. Senator Booker claims that the legislation would invest $10 million, over a span of 5 years, to fund educational programs surrounding training and course materials emphasizing African American history. The investment also plans to benefit the National Museum of African American History and Culture, by working alongside the museum to create educational courses and events. This includes updating the website to feature programs, curriculum, and special projects that correlate with updated curriculum on the history of race and gender in America.
Republican Objection
On the opposing side of this legislative movement, several state lawmakers have introduced laws in that restrict specific course content from being taught in public schools and re-shape how current content is being taught.
As of now, 14 states have integrated similar laws into their educational curriculum; more states are beginning to follow this trend. In 2021, Idaho signed into law a ban on critical race and gender theory from being taught and discussed in the classroom. Earlier this year, a new bill was proposed in the state that would allow any individual to sue school districts that are continuing to teach topics of race and gender in the classroom. Idaho will also have the ability to cut funding from school districts that are not complying with the laws.
Republicans in the federal government have taken the responsibility to create a legislation of their own that targets the proposed African History Act bill. If passed, Senator Tom Cotton’s (R-AK) legislation would regulate what content schools are permitted and not permitted to teach in schools; it would go into effect nationwide. This includes banning material related to race/gender theory, effectively creating a filter surrounding American history, and eliminating discussion of controversial topics. Parents’ voices will also have a big impact. Republican lawmakers are encouraging parents to voice their opinions and concerns on the material they believe their children should be learning in school.
The banned topics included in the bill consist of “divisive concepts”, such as promoting propaganda of the U.S. being racist, encouraging the superiority of one race over another, exhorting that a person’s character is determined by race/sex, etc. This list was inspired by former President Donald Trump’s 2020 failed executive order that attempted to block diversity training in public work sectors. On December 22, 2020, a federal judge issued a nation-wide injunction to block the executive order due to the consequences of training in the workforce with the new restrictions. However, parents and conservative organizations have banded together to encourage Senator Cotton’s bill. Supporters argue that so-called critical race theory curriculum attacks white children and categorizes them as racists and oppressors. Therefore, the bill aims to eliminate the discussion of race from school content to ensure the removal of racism developing within students and in future generations.
The Future of Both Bills
Both parties have expressed their concern and necessity for their proposed bills. Due to the increasing popularity of the African American History Act bill, the legislation will most likely pass the House of Representatives. However, the bill is currently being reviewed in committee where it will continue to undergo changes. Due to such a controversial and sensitive issue, GovTrack predicts that there is a 3% chance the bill will pass both the House and Senate. As for the Republican bill, there has been no movement in terms of introducing the legislation into Congress. Since this bill would also interfere with several state laws, there is a low chance of the passage of this bill.
Because states have already enacted laws affecting course content in their schools, it is very unlikely they favor the idea of federal legislation making changes. After all, education is fundamentally a responsibility of states, although the federal government controls certain education funds. Critical race theory curriculum has become a very sensitive topic in terms of implementing it into public schools; there will always be opposition from either side. In order for all students to have equal educational opportunity and to be well prepared as educated citizens, they must all be exposed to a certain common curriculum on American history and civics. The needs of students — and the difficult challenge teachers face today — seem to have gotten lost in this political debate. Both parties must come together and collaborate on a bill that works towards improving the public education system, including an accurate and objective exploration of American history. This will support both the academic success of students and their ability to become thoughtful, contributing citizens.
News You May Have Missed
Mask Mandates Ending Across the Nation
This week, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that on February 10, New York will end its vaccination and mask mandate for businesses. This, however, does not include schools, medical and health care facilities, and public transportation. Counties are free to enact mandates of their own if they still wish to do so. States like California, New Jersey, Oregon, Connecticut, and Delaware are considering following New York’s actions. The declining COVID-19 and hospitalization rates have provoked states to consider reducing mask and vaccination mandates, with hopes of the pandemic beginning to subside once again. Gov. Hochul commended the people of New York for following mask and vaccination mandates that have decreased cases from 328 per 100,000 to 35 per 100,000 on average per week. The governor affirmed that lifting mask mandates from schools is the next step in this process of completely eliminating mandates. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that it is still too soon to be removing mask and vaccination mandates, states are eager for the pandemic and related restrictions to come to an end.
Blockade of Key US-Canadian Bridge Complicates Cross-Border Trade
In connection with wider protests in Canada against vaccine requirements for entry into Canada and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, has been blocked by protesters. The bridge in question is an important link between the United States and Canada that cross-border supply chains rely heavily on. Despite efforts in Ottawa and Washington to develop alternative routes, a prolonged bridge closure threatens to exacerbate preexisting supply chain challenges on both sides of the border. While Canada was the United States’ top trading partner last year, American legislators such as Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin renewed calls to reshore American manufacturing in order to avoid future cross-border supply chain disruptions.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.