Coronavirus Politics Daily: Japan's PM clashes with Tokyo, China's beef with Australia, EU tries to reboot tourism

The prime minister vs the governor: Japan edition – Around the world, national and local leaders have been sparring over how to manage the coronavirus crisis. In Japan, long-standing political rivals, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Tokyo's Governor Yoriko Koike have been bickering over the national pandemic response strategy. Koike, for her part, has criticized Abe for his slow response to the outbreak, which she says cost the country precious time in curbing the virus' spread. While Abe dithered in his response to the pandemic, the governor's messaging has proved prescient, with recent reports revealing hospitals have turned away non-COVID-19 patients in need of urgent care because of a lack of beds, medical supplies, and staff, according to the Japanese Society of Emergency Medicine. A lag in testing, meanwhile, means that Japan has conducted a mere 1.8 tests per 1,000 people, making it impossible to know the real scope of the outbreak. (Consider that the US has conducted 28 tests per 1,000 people, while Germany has conducted 34 per 1,000.) Critics say that Abe's inconsistent messaging – he waited until mid April to declare a "state of emergency" that he insisted was "not a lockdown" – has not resonated with Japanese residents, an overwhelming majority of whom (some 74 percent) support a more aggressive response to the coronavirus crisis. This has also translated to the polls, where Abe's popularity has plunged in recent weeks. But Japan's next general election is not scheduled until October 2021, so the prime minister still has time to redeem himself.

China and Australia's coronavirus beef – The coronavirus crisis has exposed rifts between China and Australia, longstanding trade partners. For weeks, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has called for an international investigation into the origins and handling of COVID-19. His insinuation that China has something to hide sparked a firm response from Beijing, Australia's largest trading partner, with China threatening to slap tariffs on billions of dollars worth of Australian agricultural exports. Amid the war of words, China has already suspended purchases of red meat from several Australian abattoirs, sending agriculture industry leaders into a panic as China accounts for some 20 percent of all beef produced in Australia. The Australian government, which has long enjoyed a trade surplus with China, says it doesn't want a trade war with Beijing and hopes to deescalate the situation. China, meanwhile, responded with a statement that says, "mutual respect should be the basis for the development of good relations," before threatening Australia with additional tariffs.

The EU looks to open for tourism – As the summer tourism season approaches, the European Commission is urging EU states to carefully loosen coronavirus-related travel restrictions. Tourism is big business in Europe, accounting for about 10% of the bloc's overall GDP, with many countries more dependent than that: 13 percent of Italy's economy and 14 percent of Spain's depend on tourists. Fully, a fifth of Greece's GDP and a quarter of Croatia's depend on holiday-makers. Some EU countries have already begun selectively reopening their borders. Austria, where tourists contribute to 15 percent of GDP, is looking to reopen crossings with Germany and the Czech Republic in the coming days, while Germany will relax recent controls with France, Austria, and Switzerland. The three Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) are creating a "travel bubble" of their own starting on 15 May. Looking further afield, the union's external borders are to stay shut until at least mid-June. But opening borders is one thing, changing minds is another. Even if people can travel again, how long will it take for them to do so in large numbers? Masked bargain-hunters now is your moment.

Beyond simply accumulating too much waste, we also recycle and repurpose so little of it. 3D printers, however, can reverse this pattern. Among the most used tools in the "circular" economy, these printers help reduce production costs, release fewer greenhouse gases, and reduce the use of raw materials by allowing objects to be repaired.

See how they work on the 7th episode of Eni's new Energy Superfacts series.

You've probably heard a lot in the past three days about Senator Kamala Harris, her background, and the ground-breaking nature of her candidacy for US vice president.

But now that the cheering crowds have logged off and the virtual confetti has been swept away, we're left with a basic question: will Kamala Harris make a difference — on the campaign trial and maybe in the White House — for Joe Biden?

More Show less

Kevin Sneader, global managing partner for McKinsey & Company, provides perspective on how corporate business leaders think in response to the coronavirus crisis:

What is the role of HR going into the next normal?

Well, this is a time of reset and one big reset that I see is around the role of HR. I think it's time for HR to shift from being a transactional partner around compensation, organization charts, and benefits to being a truly integral architect of change. Now, that's been happening for years in the best performing HR departments. It Involves rethinking talent requirements, capturing what was learned about individuals and organizations during the course of this pandemic, and even learning and growing in a world in which remote working has to be combined with working back in the office or the manufacturing facility. A world where incentives needs to be rethought. And where employee experiences need to reflect a very different reality. So, there's a big reset going on and I think that reset needs to embrace HR both in terms of what HR can do, the role of the CHR role, and indeed the way in which together HR becomes a true architect for change, just as it has done for many years, perhaps unnoticed, and not give enough credit by those who really should know better.

An open letter in Politico by a group of foreign policy experts says the US should take a much tougher approach on Russia. In this edition of The Red Pen, Ian Bremmer is joined by Eurasia Group analysts Alex Brideau and Zach Witlin to point out some reasons why diplomacy and realism are critical in the US approach to Russia.

And today, we're taking our Red Pen to an open letter titled "No, Now Is Not the Time for Another Russia Reset." It was published in Politico and signed by 33 foreign policy experts, including diplomats Bill Taylor and Kurt Volker, who both testified at the impeachment hearings, as well as a bunch of military intelligence and diplomatic figures. And as it turned out, actually, we were Red Penned here, because it's a response to this piece, also in Politico recently, that I cosigned with a different group of Russia experts, including Fiona Hill and Jon Huntsman.

Both letters talk about the road ahead for US relations with Russia. The one I signed argued that the US needs to know when there will be opportunities to work with Russia and when Washington has to push back. The central argument in this article is that there's no point in talking to Russia until Putin changes his mind. So, what we have here is an open debate about the issue. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty we agree on and plenty of places where no red ink is required.

We agree that Russia bears plenty of responsibility for the current state of affairs. It occupies territory that belongs to Georgia and Ukraine, two sovereign states. And it interfered in the 2016 US election and continues to do so as we speak. Moscow has also killed dissidents in Europe, assassinated them. So, I mean, you know, no one is trying to justify any of that belligerent behavior. And we also agree that while the United States can fine tune its policy all we want, it actually takes two to tango. Recent talks with the Russians have not been too successful, but since the red pen is here, it is time to highlight some areas of disagreement. So, here they are.

Point one, the authors argue that there's no point in talking to Russia about much of anything until Putin changes his act. They write that "by arguing that it is the United States and not Russia that needs a 'current change of course' the authors of the open letter (that's us) get it exactly backward."

If the US takes an all or nothing approach with Russia, it will end up with nothing. Look, I mean, I certainly expect and understand that we should have a more hawkish line on a bunch of things with the Chinese as well, but that doesn't mean you can't work with these countries on climate change, on space, on a bunch of areas where it's actually really important. These are still large economies. In the case of the Russians, the largest nuclear arsenal in the world along with the United States, and I would argue that leaving the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement was a mistake, leaving the Blue Skies Agreement, the Open Skies Agreement was a mistake. That you have to work even with your antagonists, and that's important. That means that we should be pursuing diplomacy and cooperation where we can while also vigorously defending our own interests where we can't. This strikes me as a fairly obvious baseline understanding of international diplomacy, and I'm always surprised when people push back against it.

Point two, the authors write that the US should "maintain, even enhance sanctions" on Russia unless a long list of demands are met, like withdrawing troops from Ukraine, including Crimea, and ending cyberattacks and election interference.

Nobody is saying we should give in to Russia on any of those issues. The bottom line is that the above list of demands is already US policy. How more sanctions would change Russian behavior? Doesn't make a lot of sense. You need your allies on board for sanctions to work. And sanctions work best when they're calibrated and targeted. When they have clear benchmarks that when met, lead to easing of those sanctions. And when they're paired with diplomacy. Russia's a big nuclear armed country, unlike, say, South Africa. Russia's not going to simply be sanctioned into surrender. Maintain the sanctions but expanding them at this point strikes me as having very little likelihood of return and only marginal increase of sanctions that we could do.

Point three, the authors say that the US should not resign itself to accepting "Russia's repression, kleptocracy and aggression" as that provides no incentive for Putin to change.

Now, we agree. The US cannot accept Russian misbehavior, but we need to be realistic about what we can actually change, like stopping Russian election meddling, and what we can't, like Russia's kleptocracy. We can and should do our part to stop dirty money from coming into the US and Europe but changing Russia's domestic system is another story.

So, in conclusion, the Russians are an antagonist of the United States. Their revisionist power, they're in decline. They are trying to undermine the Americans, the Europeans, and the transatlantic relationship. All true. But I actually think that there are areas where we still need to be working with lots of states that we really don't like and don't trust, and yes, Russia is one of them. By the way, New START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty signed in 2010 by the US and Russia expires in February 2021. Open dialog right now could save it and I think it's worth saving. Let's work on that.

"We now have for the first time, pre-COVID, a very good sense of where the gaps are" says former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden on pandemic preparedness. But in order to prevent another pandemic from bringing the world to its knees, he argues, the United States must play a more proactive role on the global stage. First step: work much more closely with the CDC (and don't, for starters, pull funding during a pandemic).