COVID-19 blunders signal end of ‘American Century’

By Wang Wen Source: Global Times Published: 2020/3/30

For most people it's unfathomable that the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic is the first global event that hasn't been led by the US since 1941. In 1941, the US was a leader in the worldwide anti-fascist war. During this current global fight against an invisible enemy, the US is hardly able to protect itself. The US should have been much better prepared for the outbreak considering the coronavirus came to its shores after it had rampaged through China, Japan, South Korea, Iran, Italy, France, Germany, and Britain. 

The Trump administration was ineptly over-confident. It lied about the pandemic, missed its best chance to contain the virus, and is now trying to blame other countries. Currently, the US leads the world in the number of infected cases, with a total death toll that is greater than that caused by the 9/11 attacks. According to Professor Stephen M. Walt, the pandemic may declare "the death of American competence."

The US is the self-proclaimed leader of the world, but it's sad to see that not one country has rushed to help the US out of its current virus plight. By contrast, when China was in its arduous battle against the virus two months ago, at least 53 countries donated personal protective equipment (PPE), and now as the threat in China abates it has helped more than 80 countries and international organizations, supplying ventilators and PPE. I wonder what Time magazine's founding publisher Henry Luce, who coined the term "American Century," would call on the US to do. Perhaps he would publish a similar cover story, but this time probably an obituary: "American Century (1941-2020)."

There have been debates on the decline of the US for many years. I believe that the US, which led the world's development after WWII, should never be underestimated. Yet it is probably indisputable that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an end to the "American Century." 

The principal founder of peace and conflict studies, Johan Galtung predicted in his 2009 book The Fall of the US Empire-And Then What? that the US empire will decline and fall by 2020. According to Galtung, the decline and fall of the US is due to its expanding hegemon that has driven the US to exploit and suppress other countries. 

The history of ancient China, which witnessed the rise and fall of numerous dynasties, provides a number of bitter lessons: Emperors who overindulged in sensual pleasures, wantonly engaged in military aggression, lacked experience in ruling a country and were forsaken by allies eventually witnessed the death of their empire. Let's take a look at the past four US presidents. The political sex scandal involving Bill Clinton exposed the ugly features of the White House. George W. Bush launched successive wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, which depleted the US treasury and played a role in the 2008 global financial crisis. Barack Obama strived to make changes but achieved little due to insufficient governing experience and a deeply divided Congress that was stacked against him. Donald Trump's "America First" doctrine has led his administration to abruptly withdraw from international treaties that have almost cracked the traditional world order.

The fractured US society means that new domestic policy never receives the full support of the American people, giving room to populist and protectionist policies to be seen as acceptable within the country. This is leading the international image of the US to decline from one of a global empire to an inconsequential regional power.

The Chinese people do not take any pleasure in witnessing the end of the American century. Even as the US is ravaged by the pandemic, the Trump administration has not stopped attacking China. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo used racist virus terms to smear China during several international events. Trump signed the so-called Taipei Act into law in direct interference in cross-Straits affairs. Obviously, China is seen as the "competitor" that concerns the declining US empire most.

Former US first lady Michelle Obama once said, "When they go low, we go high." China is unwilling to get entangled with the petty politics of the US. Instead, China is devoted to walking a fine line between controlling the epidemic and resuming economic activities. The country is also ready to provide any help within its capacity to those in need.

China will give the US a hand in fighting the virus if it is asked. The two countries cooperated to cope with the 2008 financial crisis, and they should be working together now. But things have changed. The COVID-19 pandemic will show an unprecedented change that had already begun: a move away from the US-centric century.

The author is professor and executive dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at the Renmin University of China, and executive director of China-US People-to-People Exchange Research Center. His latest book is Great Power's Long March Road. wangwen2013@ruc.edu.cn

William Barr Greenlit Bush’s Invasion of Panama, Is Venezuela Next?

by Dave DeCamp Posted onMarch 30, 2020

https://original.antiwar.com/Dave_DeCamp/2020/03/29/william-barr-greenlit-bushs-invasion-of-panama-is-venezuela-next/

The US Justice Department unsealed an indictment on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and other government officials last week, accusing them of "narco-terrorism." The move is reminiscent of the 1988 indictment of former CIA asset and Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. The Noriega indictment resulted in a US invasion of Panama that left hundreds – possibly thousands – of dead civilians in its wake. Attorney General William Barr took to the podium to announce Maduro’s indictment. Barr happens to be the same person who gave the first Bush administration the legal justification to invade Panama just over 30 years ago.

Barr first worked in the DOJ in 1989 when George H. W. Bush appointed him as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Bush and Barr had some history together. The two first crossed paths in 1976 when Bush was head of the CIA, and Barr served as a congressional liaison for the agency. At the time, Manuel Noriega was also on the CIA’s payroll.

Noriega served as a useful tool for the CIA for decades, most notably known for helping the US send money and weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua. But after Noriega became more of a liability than an asset, the US turned on him. Noriega’s connection to drug trafficking became the pretext for his disposal, something the US government was undoubtedly aware of long before the indictment.

In 1988, the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics, and international operations said, "It is clear that each US government agency which had a relationship with Noriega turned a blind eye to his corruption and drug dealing, even as he was emerging as a key player on behalf of the Medellin Cartel (Pablo Escobar’s infamous Colombian cartel)."

In February 1988, under the Reagan administration, the US indicted Noriega on charges of Drug trafficking and racketeering, and he was taken off the CIA’s payroll. Over the next year, the US placed economic sanctions on Panama in an effort to pressure Noriega to step down. When Bush came into the White House in January 1989, he continued adding sanctions, and tensions between Noriega’s military and US troops stationed in Panama increased. The US controlled the Panama Canal at the time, so there was a strong US military presence in the country, and tens of thousands of US citizens were living there.

It was around the time of ever-growing tensions between Noriega and the US that William Barr was asked by then-Attorney General Dick Thornburgh to author a legal opinion memo. The purpose of Barr’s opinion memo was to overrule an opinion written in 1980 by President Carter’s head of the OLC that ruled the FBI does not have international authority to arrest a person in another nation if that nation does not consent. The opinion written under Carter said, "US agents have no law enforcement authority in another nation unless it is the product of that nation’s consent."

Barr’s opinion said that the FBI could carry out arrests in other nations, even if it violates international law. The document, dated June 21^st, 1989, reads, "At the direction of the President or the Attorney General, the FBI may use its statutory authority to investigate and arrest individuals for violating United States law, even if the FBI’s actions contravene customary international law."

Barr wrote, "The 1980 Opinion was clearly wrong in asserting that the United States is legally powerless to carry out actions that violate international law by impinging on the sovereignty of other countries. It is well established that both political branches — the Congress and the Executive — have, within their respective spheres, the authority to override customary international law."

In November 1989, after the document’s existence became known, Barr testified before Congress on its contents. Barr refused to make the document itself public and did not disclose all of its contents, which caused some controversy, but that seemed to be a distraction from the real issue – the belief that the president is above international law. Writing in the Los Angeles Times in October 1989, journalist Ron Astrow said his sources in the White House dubbed Barr’s ruling "the president’s snatch authority." Astrow speculated that this new authority could be used to arrest Noriega.

On December 20^th, 1989, President Bush launched Operation Just Cause. Over 27,000 troops invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, the largest US military action since the Vietnam war. The campaign was especially brutal for civilians. The neighborhood of El Chorillo in Panama City saw the worst destruction. US forces indiscriminately bombed El Chorillo without giving the residents any notice, resulting in civilian deaths and the destruction of about 4,000 homes. Horrific stories of US tanks running over and crushing civilians surfaced after the invasion, and witnesses described a total disregard for civilian life by the US forces.

The civilian death toll given by the US government is around 200, but that number is widely disputed. Some human rights groups say the number is in the thousands. Either number is horrific considering Noriega was captured on January 3^rd, 1990, and the campaign only lasted two weeks. Victims claim many bodies were buried in mass graves and never counted, and to this day, families of the dead are still searching for the bodies of their loved ones. In 2019, Panama made December 20^th an official day of mourning.

Bush did not get Congressional approval for the invasion, violating the War Powers Act that was passed in 1973 after President Nixon’s bombings of Cambodia and Laos. Bush publicly justified the invasion on the grounds of self-defense. A US marine was killed in Panama a few days before the invasion, part of an escalating series of confrontations between US troops and the Panamanian military. Some reports say US troops were purposely provoking members of Panama’s armed forces. The indictment of Noriega and the harsh economic sanctions were probably enough provocation to cause incidents between the two countries’ armed forces.

The invasion violated at least two international treaties: The United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). Shortly after the invasion began, the OAS voted 20 to 1 in favor of an immediate US withdrawal. The UN General Assembly denounced the invasion in a vote of 75 to 20. Barr’s opinion memo made it clear that the Bush administration was not concerned with violating international law.

Barr believed in a strong Executive branch and later advised Bush that he did not need Congressional approval for the war against Iraq. In 1991, Barr’s support for Bush’s leadership was rewarded, and he was nominated to be the 77^th Attorney General of the United States. Fast forward about 30 years later, and William Barr is back in that office.

With the indictment of Maduro, the DOJ placed a $15 million bounty on his head, offering that money for any information that leads to his arrest. Indicting a head of state is an incredible provocation, but by US logic, Maduro is no longer Venezuela’s president. Since opposition leader, Juan Guaido declared himself president of Venezuela in January 2019, the US and its allies have not recognized the Maduro government, even though he still holds power in Caracas. As Barr put it, "We do not recognize Maduro as the president of Venezuela. Obviously, we indicted Noriega under similar circumstances, we did not recognize Noriega as the president of Panama."

Maduro has always been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, and this indictment is just another transparent effort of US regime change in the South American country. The allegation against Maduro is that he works with Colombia’s rebel FARC group to smuggle cocaine through Venezuela that eventually reaches the US. According to Barr, the route the cocaine takes is either on boats through the Caribbean, or on airplanes through Honduras.

A closer look at where the cocaine in the US comes from shows the vast majority does not pass through Venezuela. A report released by the Washington Office for Latin America (WOLA) earlier in March debunked the myth spread by Washington that Venezuela is a top narco-state. Using the US government’s own numbers, the WOLA report found that in 2017 only 7 percent of the cocaine that came to the US moved through Venezuela’s Eastern Caribbean waters. The vast majority, 84 percent, moved through the Eastern Pacific.

Barr estimates around 200 to 250 metric tons of cocaine transits through Venezuela per year. According to the numbers in the WOLA report, 210 metric tons passed through Venezuela in 2018. By comparison, Guatemala had over 1,400 metric tons pass through it that same year. Both Venezuela and Guatemala are known as "transit countries," meaning they do not produce cocaine, it only transits through. Colombia, the world’s top producer of cocaine, had about 2,400 metric tons moved through the country in 2018.

The numbers show that if the concern was drug trafficking and not regime change, the US has much bigger fish to fry than Nicolas Maduro if the allegations against him are even true. Economic sanctions placed on Venezuela by the Trump administration make it near impossible for the country to sell its oil, Venezuela’s greatest natural resource. If Maduro really was the corrupt "narco-terrorist" the US claims he is, wouldn’t sanctioning the oil sector make him more reliant on drug money and increase the flow of cocaine? Since the oil sanctions started in 2017, the flow of cocaine through Venezuela has actually decreased.

The Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) released a report in April 2019 that found US sanctions on Venezuela were responsible for 40,000 deaths in the country. Experts believe the updated number is now around 100,000 since the crippling sanctions are still in effect. The CEPR report explains how sanctions impact Venezuela’s medical supplies, and with the country now facing a possible coronavirus outbreak, those sanctions will only exacerbate the epidemic. The indictment of Maduro in the midst of a global pandemic shows the world that US imperialism never shows mercy.

Realistically, a US invasion of Venezuela to arrest Maduro is unlikely. The task would prove much more difficult than the invasion of Panama. Venezuela is much bigger and is lacking the US military presence Panama had in the 80s. The military has stayed loyal to Maduro, and Venezuela’s civilian militia has over three million members. Maduro has called for the creation of an "Anti-Imperialist School" to train his militia members as "professionals." Anti-imperialism is a key tenant of Maduro’s rhetoric, and Hugo Chavez’s before him, the Trump administration’s Venezuela policy has done nothing but play into this narrative.

But the fact is, there is a president in the White House who has not taken the military option to remove Maduro off the table. And the Attorney General believes the president has the right to invade a sovereign nation to arrest its leader without Congressional approval, even if it is in direct violation of international law.

La geopolítica en los tiempos del coronavirus

Katu Arkonada*

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/03/28/opinion/019a2pol

Doce años después de la crisis financiera de 2008 la historia se repite, no sabemos aún si como tragedia más profunda o directamente como farsa. Tres mil millones de personas en el mundo confinadas por un coronavirus, llamado SARS CoV-2, que ha pateado el tablero mundial, pero también ha logrado lo que el socialismo no pudo: que se asuma la imperiosa necesidad del Estado como herramienta para garantizar la reproducción de la vida ante al avance depredador del capital.

La pandemia que arrasa al mundo, deja al descubierto cómo el neoliberalismo fue desmantelando el Estado y su sistema de salud, privatizando y entregando el control a farmacéuticas privadas donde pudo. Y donde aún quedaba Estado del bienestar, como en España e Italia, el sistema de salud ha colapsado.

El maremoto geopolítico ha obligado a Estados Unidos, y a pesar de Trump, a aprobar un rescate en forma de inversión pública de 2 billones de dólares, mientras el número de contagios supera ya los cerca de 82 mil de una China que mediante un Estado autoritario y eficiente con control sobre los medios de producción y alta tecnología, ha podido neutralizar los contagios locales del Covid-19. Camiones rusos entran en Roma, al mismo tiempo que en Alemania y Francia se habla de nacionalizar empresas, mientras Japón posterga los Juegos Olímpicos hasta 2021 e India confina a mil 300 millones de personas. En América Latina los médicos cubanos retornan a Brasil, tras haber sido expulsados por Bolsonaro, a quien se le rebelan unos gobernadores que impulsan una renta básica lulista como medida para afrontar la crisis. Mientras tanto en Chile siendo éste el Israel de Sudamérica, Piñera decreta el estado de excepción constitucional de catástrofe.

Pero todos los anteriores son países del G20 u OCDE. Debe ser por eso que hablamos tanto del coronavirus y no mucho de la malaria, que tan solo en 2019 mató a 400 mil personas en África. Perdón, donde dije personas quise escribir 400 mil pobres y negros. Porque ese es el debate subyacente en México hoy y en muchos otros países. El aislamiento puede ser necesario en muchos lugares para contener la pandemia, pero sólo puede ser sostenible si no condena al hambre a los más vulnerables, quienes no cuentan con redes de protección social ni son parte de la economía formal.

Y es que después de la crisis sanitaria viene la crisis económica y social, una vez que se interrumpa la oferta por la interrupción de las cadenas de suministros y haya un shock de demanda interna y externa.

Sin ir más lejos, en Estados Unidos subsisten 27 millones de personas sin seguro médico y 11 millones más sin documentos. El coronavirus ya ha disparado las peticiones de prestaciones por desempleo hasta el récord histórico de 3.28 millones. Esto sólo en Estados Unidos, porque a escala mundial la OIT calcula un crecimiento del desempleo de 5.3 millones de personas en su hipóte-sis más prudente, y de 24.7 millones en la más extrema. Por comparar, la crisis de 2008-2009 dejó 22 millones de nuevos desempleados. En América Latina la crisis del Covid-19 podría hacer pasar el número de personas en situación de pobreza y extrema pobreza de los 250 millones actuales a 310, la mitad de los 620 millones de personas que habitamos en el subcontinente.

En el plano estrictamente económico, la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas para el Comercio y Desarrollo calcula perdidas globales por 2 billones de dólares, pero otros estudios hablan de hasta 9 millones, lo que significaría 10 por ciento del PIB global en un mundo en crisis donde la deuda global ya supera los 250 billones de dólares.

Estamos ante una bifurcación con dos posibles salidas: una es el camino que vislumbra Slavoj Zizek, una sociedad alternativa de cooperación y solidaridad, basada en la confianza en las personas y en la ciencia; el otro camino lo define Byug Chul Han como un mayor aislamiento e individualización de la sociedad, terreno fértil para que el capitalismo regrese con más fuerza.

Pero antes de la bifurcación ya estamos en un momento donde como bien define Carlos Fernández Liria, nos preocupa más que el coronavirus infecte a los mercados que a las personas. Todo ello en un escenario definido por Boaventura de Sousa Santos con el aparente oxímoron de la crisis permanente, donde hemos normalizado la excepción que permite justificar el despojo, la acumulación por desposesión y la doctrina del shock permanente contra nuestros pueblos.

Lo que está claro es que la reproducción del capital, dificultada por la crisis de un capitalismo en fase de descomposición, puede encontrar una ventana de oportunidad en la medida en que desaparece una parte de la población mundial y se crean nuevos mercados.

La salida ante esta nueva crisis debe ser en un primer momento keynesiana, (re)construyendo estados fuertes que rescaten a las personas y no a los bancos ni a las trasnacionales, estados que aprovechen el momentum para transitar hacia otras energías no basadas en combustibles fósiles, mientras se siguen profundizando todas las alternativas posibles posneoliberales.

O quizá no hacen falta tantos malabares teóricos y debemos guiarnos por Britney Spears citando a la escritora Mimi Zhu: Nos alimentaremos mutuamente, redistribuiremos la riqueza, haremos huelga. Comprenderemos nuestra propia importancia desde los lugares donde debemos permanecer. La comunión va más allá de los muros. Todavía podemos estar juntos.

*Politólogo vasco-boliviano

Statement of Condemnation of the Decision of USA Against Venezuela

The World Peace Council condemns strongly the decision of the US Attorney General, on behalf of the US administration, to announce criminal charges against the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and other high-ranking officials with the pretext of their alleged involvement in international drug trafficking.

The US General Attorney threatens to designate the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as “a state sponsoring terrorism”. This decision of the US-administration constitutes not only a further escalation in the provocations, coercive measures and interference against a sovereign country, it proves also the cynical and arrogant approach of the USA, which is using the critical times of the pandemic of COVID 19 worldwide, to impose new additional sanctions on the country and its people.

The people of Venezuela are already suffering from the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the US imperialists and its allies from EU and the “Lima Group”, which do not allow the country to purchase medicine and other vital products for more than one year. It is the same forces who recognize a self-proclaimed puppet as their “chosen leader” against any legitimacy, logic and international law and it is the same forces which do not allow during the COVID 19 crisis the country to buy and provide technical equipment and health products for the National Health System in the international markets.

The new decision of the USA today, acting as the “world sheriff” and announcing millions of US Dollars for the capturing of the legitimate President Nicolas Maduro, officers and ministers of the country have no precedent and are arbitrary and void.

The WPC expresses its profound solidarity to the people of Venezuela, to the anti-imperialist peace-loving forces in their struggle to defend their sovereign right to choose their leadership and destiny alone and without any foreign interference and to fight back the imperialist aggression, interference, and provocations.

We call upon all WPC members and friends to strengthen the solidarity actions with the people of Venezuela and to plan for the 19^th April, which is the International Day in Solidarity with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, actions in protest of the imperialist threats and actions in solidarity of the Venezuelan people in coordination with our Member Organisation in Venezuela (Committee for International Solidarity and Struggle for Peace-COSI)

The WPC Secretariat
26^th March 2020

Gangs call curfews as coronavirus hits Rio favelas

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/gangs-call-curfews-coronavirus-hits-215202778.htmlBy Ricardo Moraes, Debora Moreira and Rodrigo Viga Gaier

Reuters24 March 2020

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - The "baile funk" dance parties have been called off. Some open-air drug markets are closed for business. Gangs and militias have imposed strict curfews. Coronavirus is coming, and Rio de Janeiro's lawless favelas are gearing up for the onslaught.

The city of God, a sprawling complex of slums made famous in a hit 2002 movie of the same name, registered the first confirmed case of coronavirus in Rio's favelas over the weekend.

Now, with the state government woefully underfunded and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro widely criticized for a slow response to the outbreak, criminal gangs that have long-held sway across Rio's favelas are taking their own precautions against the virus, according to residents and press reports.

According to well-sourced Rio newspaper Extra, City of God gangsters have been driving round the slum, blaring out a recorded message to residents.

"We're imposing a curfew because nobody is taking this seriously," the message said, according to Extra's Tuesday story. "Whoever is in the street screwing around or going for a walk will receive a corrective and serve as an example. Better to stay home doing nothing. The message has been given."

Reuters was unable to confirm the veracity of the recorded message, but City of God residents, who declined to give their names for fear of retribution, confirmed an evening curfew and other restrictions.

The gangs' concern over the outbreak echoes fears nationwide about the fate of Brazil's nearly 15 million favela residents confronting what some have dubbed "the disease of the rich."

The coronavirus landed in the country with wealthier Brazilians returning from Europe, but is quickly migrating into poorer communities, where crowded quarters, informal labor and weak public services threaten to accelerate its spread.

Drug gangs or rival paramilitaries often act as de facto authorities in the favelas. With little or no government presence in the neighborhoods, gangs enforce social contracts. They also engage in regular shootouts with each other and police forces.

Across Brazil, some 40 million people lack access to the public water supply, while 100 million - nearly half the population - live without a connection to the sewage treatment, according to the country's National Water Agency.

"Basic sanitation is terrible," said Jefferson Maia, a 27-year-old resident of the City of God. "Sometimes, we don't even have water to wash our hands properly. We are very concerned with the coronavirus issue."

Thamiris Deveza, a family doctor working in Rio's Alemao complex of slums, said residents had been complaining for the last two weeks about a lack of water in their homes, making it difficult for them to clean their hands and protect themselves from the fast-spreading virus.

She said many pharmacies in the neighborhoods had run out of hand sanitizer. When available, it was prohibitively expensive.

FAST SPREAD

Coronavirus cases are expanding quickly in Brazil. The country had 2,201 confirmed cases on Tuesday, with 46 related deaths, according to the Health Ministry.

Rio state, where around a fifth of the population lives in favelas, now has 305 cases. Governor Wilson Witzel warned on Friday that the state's public health system was in danger of "collapse" within 15 days.

Rio Mayor Marcelo Crivella has said that officials will deposit free soap at entrances of the city's favelas and relocate older people with health problems to hotels. The city has already signed a deal to secure 400 rooms, he said.

"Those most at risk need to be protected as soon as possible," Crivella told journalists on Saturday.

On Tuesday, Rio's urban sanitation unit Comlurb kicked off a more comprehensive cleaning of some of the city's most transited areas, including around hospitals, the mayor added.

But the favelas are still likely to be a major public health challenge, said Edmilson Migowski, an infectologist at Rio's Federal University.

"The entry of the coronavirus into denser, less planned and less culturally assisted areas could be devastating," he said. "Where water, soap, and detergent are lacking, it will be difficult to stop the spread."

Trump's deadly sanctions power should be reined in

US presidents should not have the power to unilaterally wage economic warfare against civilian populations.

by Alexander Main

20 Mar 2020

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/trump-deadly-sanctions-power-reined-200319150137851.html

Much ink has been spilled over the potentially disastrous consequences of US President Donald Trump's impulsive and foolhardy foreign policy decisions. Trump's withdrawal from the Iran deal, his nuclear game of chicken with North Korea, the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and other reckless moves imperiling millions of lives have been roundly criticized by dozens of policymakers and editorial writers. 

But one particularly brutal set of White House measures that has already caused tens of thousands of casualties abroad has been ignored by most of Trump's critics. Since taking office, the president has unilaterally imposed a number of deadly, sweeping economic sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. These sanctions have not, by any reasonable measure, advanced the president's stated foreign policy goals. They have, however, wreaked havoc and destruction in the lives of countless innocent human beings. 

In Venezuela, economic sanctions that Trump first imposed in 2017 and then vastly expanded in 2019, have resulted in increased disease and mortality and are estimated to have led to tens of thousands of excess deaths, according to a 2019 study by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs.

Trump's sanctions on Iran have severely limited the country's access to medicines and medical supplies, as Human Rights Watch, has noted.

His unilateral financial sanctions against North Korea have created critical obstacles for the work of international relief organizations, according to a recent study commissioned by Korea Peace Now. 

The media has generally failed to inform the public about the harmful impact of Trump's sanctions on innocent people. Hardly any of the many alarming reports on the economic and humanitarian situation in Venezuela, for instance, have mentioned the significant role of US sanctions in deepening the country's severe economic crisis and preventing recovery. As the coronavirus spreads through Southeast Asia and beyond, it will be interesting to see to what extent the media reports on how US sanctions are preventing North Korea and Iran from accessing vital medication and medical supplies needed to confront the epidemic.

Why is there so little tangible concern about the brutal "collateral damage" caused by Trump's economic sanctions? One likely explanation is that the US foreign policy establishment has traditionally supported sanctions, despite studies showing that they generally do not produce the desired political outcome.

As a Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder explains, "sanctions, while a form of intervention is generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action between diplomacy and war. Policymakers may consider sanctions as a response to foreign crises in which the national interest is less than vital or where military action is not feasible."

The negative human consequences of sanctions are not immediately apparent and, when reports on sanctions-linked deaths emerge - as was the case in the early 1990s when economic sanctions were imposed on Haiti - they are often ignored. 

Fortunately, some US policymakers have begun bucking the cynical bipartisan consensus on sanctions and have been speaking out against their dire effects and lack of tangible results. In December 2018, fourteen members of Congress sent a letter to the administration seeking "answers regarding the humanitarian impact that recently imposed the US sanctions are having on the Iranian people".

In March 2019, 16 members of the House signed a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposing Trump's economic sanctions against Venezuela and noting that they were having "lethal effects on innocent people" and were "contributing to the ongoing outbound migration of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans". 

On February 12 of this year, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar decided to take decisive action to reign in the president's unilateral use of sanctions with the new bill entitled the Congressional Oversight over Sanctions Act (or COSA). Part of a bold new package of legislation aimed at promoting peace, human rights and respect for international law, COSA would amend the National Emergencies Act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, which - together - allow the president to order sanctions of all types without Congressional approval, simply by invoking a "national emergency", regardless of whether there is evidence of such a thing. 

Omar's bill establishes strict legislative control over the executive branch's use of sanctions by requiring Congressional approval within 60 days of the announcement of emergency sanctions powers - as well as requiring additional approval for the renewal of these powers every six months thereafter.

The legislation will also force a reckoning over the actual impact of sanctions by mandating studies on the impact of unilateral sanctions before and after their implementation. The US government would be required to report on whether sanctions advance stated goals and benchmarks. Importantly, the legislation would also require that the State Department report on whether or not presidential sanctions comply with the US's international treaty obligations; many international law experts would argue that they do not. 

COSA has already garnered strong support from a broad coalition of civil society groups. A letter urging members of Congress to co-sponsor the legislation and signed by over 40 groups that include faith-based organizations like the American Friends Service Committee and the United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, peace groups like Veterans for Peace and Win Without War and think-tanks like the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Center for International Policy. As the letter notes: "The power to impose sanctions (…) should not be in the hands of a single individual. Too many lives are at stake and there is too much potential for abuse or overuse."

As awareness grows around the injury and suffering resulting from sanctions imposed by Trump and his predecessors, we can hope that citizens and policymakers who support human rights, the constitution, and international law will back COSA and any other effort to limit the president's power to unilaterally wage economic warfare against civilian populations.