HOT AIR BALLOON FLIGHT

View this email in your browser 

Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good

Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here.

December 9, 2021

What We Know and Don't Know About Omicron

Preliminary study results are in, and they suggest Omicron can evade vaccine-induced immunity—but that boosters could be critical. As Ewen Callaway writes for Nature, various studies (some very small in scale) indicate Omicron is "highly likely to compromise some of the protection from vaccines." In a Pfizer-BioNTech study of blood samples from vaccinated people, antibodies that recognize and neutralize Covid-19 dropped 25-fold against Omicron, compared to other variants.
 
On the bright side, boosters helped—a lot. The Pfizer-Omicron study indicated a 25-fold increase in Omicron-neutralizing antibodies in blood taken from people who'd received a third shot of the companies' Covid-19 vaccine. Omicron does not appear to lessen the power of T-cells that kill off the virus.
 
As The Economist writes, the picture from South Africa, where Omicron was discovered, is a bit complicated. "In hospitals Omicron has not yet shown a pattern of worse disease in older people," the magazine writes. That could be because Omicron produces milder illness, or because many older people in South Africa had been vaccinated recently. (Covid-19 deaths per million in South Africa have shown no notable increase since Omicron was found.)
 
All of which could add up to an even-more-vigorous debate over Covid-19 boosters. As one scientist notes to Nature's Callaway, the early studies offer a "strong argument" to deliver follow-up shots. At the same magazine, Elie Dolgin wrote recently (before the latest findings) that Omicron had already "supercharged" the ethical dispute over issuing boosters in rich countries while vaccination rates remain "abysmally low" in many developing ones.

Russia, Ukraine, and the Liberal World Order

As many observers have noted, liberal democracy is on the wane globally; at Persuasion, Michael Ignatieff pens the latest call to reverse the trend, blaming authoritarians but also the "forever war" in Afghanistan that, Ignatieff writes, sapped faith in democracy as a force for good. As Russia builds up troops near Ukraine's border, Francis Fukuyama writes for American Purpose that an invasion would be one more blow to liberal democracy and a world order that has sustained it. "If Russia can get away with invading Ukraine and undermining its democracy, global politics will change everywhere and the narrative of American decline will be strongly reinforced," Fukuyama writes.

The World Faces a Decision on Afghanistan

As Afghanistan spirals into collapse, Masood Ahmed writes for Project Syndicate that wealthy countries must make up their minds about sanctions policies and financial assistance. Afghan public workers have gone without paychecks, the currency value has sunk, and signs of hunger have emerged; "[i]n addition, education and health programs risk closure—not because of decisions by the new government, but because they have no money," Ahmed writes. "This, too reflects the international community's indecision about how best to approach Afghanistan under the Taliban."
 
At New Lines Magazine, Fazelminallah Qazizai writes of petty crime and of unemployed men crowding in search of work as day laborers—and of resentment aimed abroad. "Some Afghans blame the Taliban's intransigence for this situation, but the anger of most people is directed toward the West and the U.S. in particular," Qazizai writes. "Having spent 20 years claiming they were here to help, America and its allies seem intent on proving their mendacity."

What Xi Jinping Wants—and What the World Wants From Him

At Foreign Affairs, astute China watcher Elizabeth Economy outlines Chinese President Xi Jinping's aims for his country, including prominence on the world stage, influence in Asia, sway over international organizations, and a world order that reflects China's values and accommodates its power. The problem, Economy writes, is that China has pursued those aims counterproductively, with harsh diplomacy and "coercion" that has repelled other countries.
 
Xi "appears unwilling to moderate his ambition," Economy writes. "An optimal—although still unlikely—outcome would be for Xi to engage in a series of … tradeoffs: claim regional economic leadership but step back from military aggression … trumpet success in eliminating terrorist attacks in Xinjiang but begin the process of releasing the 'reeducated' Uyghur Muslims from the labor camps. … Whether Xi is able to realize his ambition will depend on the interplay of many factors, such as the continued vitality of the Chinese economy and military and the support of other senior leaders and the Chinese people, on the one hand, and the ability of the world to continue to resist Chinese coercion and the capacity of the world's democracies and others to articulate and pursue their own compelling vision of the world's future, on the other. Perhaps most important to Xi's success, however, will be his ability to recognize and address the vast disconnect between what he wants to deliver to the world and what the world wants delivered from him."