As highlighted in Part I of the Blog last week,  the 21st century has brought dramatic changes to the entire international society.  Since WWII  significant changes in the world economy have had a great impact on the international system. The current COVID-19 crisis which has accelerated an economic  recession, unemployment and technological revolution also has implications for the balance of power in the World. Given these circumstances, old schemes and organizations will not meet the requirements of these new normal times. As the World leaders at the UN General Assembly  made  pronouncements  this week, it is clear that the global crisis has posed new challenges to multilateralism on which the viability of the UN hinges.  While tensions escalated  when the Presidents of  the USA and China  squared off in their speeches to the annual General Assembly,  the UN  Secretary General,  Antonio Guterres  lamented most poignantly on the great global risk. 

Negotiating Frameworks for Mitigating Global Risks 

The  current global risks require the United Nations (UN) to refashion its framework. There are calls for UN reforms.  It means enhancing the aspirations of the UN Charter by moving away from the focus of the 1950s UN  four-decade cluster of development programmes and   adopting specific target-oriented programmes for the  transformation of economic, environmental, and social systems. 

North-South Dialogue 
​
What emerged in the contemporary era were intensified activities of North-South negotiating frameworks in the 1970s. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for example came to the fore,  unilaterally raising the price of oil. It created a new atmosphere with developing countries exercising  leverage in the international arena. Consequently  two major conditions  provided the backdrop for a new phase on North-South negotiations, namely, the structural changes needed in the world economy and the importance of collective self-reliance by developing countries. It was the era when the Group of 77 of which Guyana is the current chair  initiated a new international economic order.
In the succeeding decade of the 1980s, developing countries advocated for  policy regulations in the development process. Meanwhile, the deepening of the debt burden in many developing countries beckoned their  recourse to the multilateral financial institutions. This resulted in the prescription of structural adjustment   by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund  that was to become the overriding mantra  in development discourse.  
Contractionary monetary policies initiated  by the development partners led to dramatic negative consequences for  external balance of payments and  economic growth rates of developing countries. This new environment had institutional consequences for the role of the UN and its agencies. It  ushered in the focus on globalization and liberalization already addressed in Part I of the blog. But it also provided a catalyst for a multilateral approach to reducing global  inequalities and poverty through the formulation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000.  

Millennium Development Goals and Lessons Learned  

The MDGs  were  a set of eight definitive commitments in the area of poverty reduction, education, gender, health, environment and trade and partnerships.   Subsequent to its adoption, several recommendations were made to enhance the MDGs, including  improvements in the gender focus by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). The MDG targets and their implementations yielded significant lessons for the role of multilateralism. UNDP 2010 report. Among the major ones that were a success in international cooperation depended on: 

• Establishing  planning and policy initiatives backed by national commitments. 
• Promoting  economic growth accompanied by targeted ‘pro-poor’ approaches to growth in sectors that benefited the poor, and   poverty and hunger significantly.
• Integrating education interventions into a holistic strategy leading to significant progress.
• Investing  in the expansion of  opportunities, legal rights and participation for women and girls.
• Bringing demonstrable success through comprehensive health interventions in maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, and investments in nutrition, water and sanitation.
• Investing  in environmental sustainability and strong global partnerships to hasten progress, while  resolving the greatest challenges around conflict, post-conflict and disaster-prone countries.                                          

 
In the final analysis, the unique and special circumstances of the vulnerable  that were ignored in the MDGs are being corrected  in the broader policy recommendations of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) initiated in 2015.  Whether they will be the driving force behind the current  template for unilateralism is still in question.   
 
Conclusion: COVID-19 a major challenge to the Sustainable Development Goals
 
GOFAD Blogs have previously covered the various elements of the SDGs. Here, however,  we propose that the greatest challenge to the UN 2030 Development Multilateral Agenda and the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals is the COVID–19 Pandemic.  The economic impact of COVID-19 is illustrated in the emergence of a vicious circle of debt and austerity policies which threatens the development progress in many countries. A recent study by the UN University World Institute for Development Economics Research predicts that the pandemic could increase global poverty for approximately half a billion people, about 8% of the total human population. In his address to UNGA this week, Mr. Trump who  has been a longstanding critic of the United Nations,  challenged its multilateral diplomacy as an impediment to his “America First” policy,  blamed China for the coronavirus scourge that has traumatized the world and demanded that the United Nations holds China accountable. Mr. Xi, clearly anticipating Mr. Trump’s attacks, portrayed the virus as everyone’s challenge and described China’s response as scientific, generous and responsible.
 
These are compelling circumstances that call for the UN Member States commemorating its 75thAnniversary to renew commitments to strengthen their efforts in international cooperation and solidarity.
 
Garfield Barwell 
Senior Advisor UN Agenda 
Former Director Climate Change

This week's blog is the first of two parts. It reviews  the stages in the emerging international system and the responsiveness of the international community to the challenges facing the world. It  addresses  the evolution of multilateralism and will be followed up next week with  insights on the contemporary challenges and actions of multilateralism.  
 
The Context
  
The international community begins its  annual deliberations at the United Nations General Assembly next week, September 22 - 29, 2020.  Its  theme is  The future we want, the United Nations we need: reaffirming our collective commitment to multilateralism – confronting COVID-19 through effective multilateral action.  The discussions will be the focus of several  landmark events. Chief among which are: 
 
• High Level deliberations to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the United Nations.
•High-Level Summit on Biodiversity and the 24th Anniversary of the 4th World Conference    on Women.
• High-level meeting to commemorate and promote the International Day for the Total
   Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
 
It is not surprising  that this year’s  UN General Assembly   will be concerned with taking  decisive actions  to effectively deal with the coronavirus, which is  inflicting tremendous harm on  economies and societies, globally.  In this  75th anniversary year,  a multilateral approach to COVID-19 and the other issues    comport  with the main  aspirational goals of the UN to  maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote social progress, better living standards and human rights. In this COVID era, The UN like many other organizations has had to shift from in-person to virtual operations. The results from this new formula for  international diplomacy are unpredictable.  
 
Evolution of  Multilateralism
 
The arrangements that define multilateralism are generally seen as a collection of sovereign states taking policy actions to coordinate their relations based on a common set of principles, often in line with the main goals of the UN.  In this regard, winning the  war against  the COVID- 19 pandemic  will  challenge  the state of multilateralism and the collective leadership it needs to do so. 
 
At the end of World War  II, the focus of attention was on the reconstruction of  Western European economies devastated by war. This involved extensive policy dialogue between USA and  Western Europe. These deliberations and follow-up actions offered a period of great optimism for the Western countries in building a power bloc through a range of institutional settings. They  included the construction of the Marshall Plan in 1947 which helped  the Western European countries to combat poverty, disease and malnutrition. This plan was instrumental in the establishment of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions and later,  several treaties, agreements and other important institutions. On the other hand, the USSR and many Eastern European countries were pursuing a different path to  reconstruction and development. It has  led to  two different strands in the emergence of  the “cold war” revolving around  the ideological divergence of thinking between a centrally planned  and  a market economy.
 
Historians have pointed out that the  cold war experience existed since the 1930s, when it was used to describe the fraught relationships among European countries.  In 1945, after the United States used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, George Orwell introduced  the term and predicted decades of nuclear anxiety in  international relations.  https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/02/09/in-1945-george-orwell-coined-the-term-cold-war-and-predicted-decades-of-nuclear-anxiety/
 
The Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union that lasted from 1947-1991  led the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear disaster. It fizzled in August 1991 with the collapse of the USSR and Eastern European economies.  The post-cold  war experience has demonstrated that most successful economies are "mixed"  relying  on smart technologies and carefully scrutinized policy actions, leadership and public-private partnerships. 
 
The Peace Dividend and multilateralism 
 
The concept of the peace dividend emerged at the end of the Cold War. Many Western nations began making significant cuts in military spending. In the early 1990s, various US administrations initiated  programmes involving   moving talent and technologies from building military capability to economic development.  The relative power of the US , the rise of Japan as  one of the World's largest creditors  and the economically united Europe as the world's largest market  were prerequisites to the dawn of globalization and a justification for an upsurge in multilateralism. This development was referred to by Chatham House (Royal Institute of International affairs)  as an investment in international stability by creating the socio-economic conditions of peace through political and economic interdependence . https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/field/field_document/20150619InvestingInStabilityBaileyFordBrownBradley.pdf
 
Decolonization and Development
 
Simultaneously,  what  emerged, was an upsurge in demand from the developing world for transformative change. During the period of postwar reconstruction, many people living in the developing countries were seeking their national independence from the colonial rulers. Many  suffered from the worse forms of subjugation under colonialism. This was the period when colonial markets were extremely profitable with little attention  given to human welfare. It  was a  trigger for developing countries  seeking their independence at a time when the UK , other European countries and North America were industrializing, and the colonial arrangements were beginning to become less profitable.
 
Various circumstances evolved and different outcomes emerged in the developing world. Many  Latin America countries  participated in the League of Nations, an international diplomatic group developed after WW1  because they attained their independence from Spain much earlier than most African and Caribbean Countries. Notwithstanding, their status the US government in the 1930s made provisions for Latin American countries to participate in the New Deal and other arrangements to counter the communist influences in the region. On the other hand, before India attained independence, the European colonial powers used a number of measures to represent the colonies (the current developing countries)  in multilateral institutions through various colonial arrangements. 
 
 Independence of India in 1947 signaled the advent of many new independent states in the international arena,  revolutionizing the multilateral system and shifting   the international system toward a   development agenda . This orientation over time, influenced new ways of  looking at a range of issues including security matters. 
 
In 1994 the  UN Human Development Report introduced the concept of human security, which equates security with people rather than territories and with development rather than arms. The creative will of the developing countries was now  on display at the UN. Recognizing these trends, the  industrialized countries developed new ways to subjugate the aspirations of the developing countries. This was best illustrated during the 1980s with the emergence of the international debt crisis and the significant roles that were given to the Bretton Woods Institutions.  In contrast, to the experience of the support given to the European countries in the post war reconstruction, developing countries were treated under the familiar model of risk management where “one size fit all”, where  agreements were operationalized, and countries were assumed to be consuming and often importing more than they were producing. As a result, policies were constructed that sought  to constrain consumption, imports and significant cuts in public expenditures. These policies in many instances led to a number of economic and social pathologies in developing countries.
 
Globalization and Development 
 
By the  last quarter of the twentieth century, globalization ushered in the gradual spread of trade, the growing presence of international corporations operating as internationally integrated production systems, the expansion and mobility of capital along with increasing restrictions on labor mobility and mass real-time access to information. As a result, many developing countries faced consequences of globalization due to the erosion of their autonomy and sovereignty. This was compounded by   an increase in the importance of non-state actors such as transnational corporations, private financial institutions and NGOs. With the sheer multitude of actors and the large sums of money which many of them command, the possibility for individual Governments to formulate and implement policies effectively — whether regarding exchange rates, interest rates, or wages — declined. Worse yet, many developing countries, were excluded from the globalization process. These countries are mainly exporters of primary commodities which have become less and less important in world trade. 
 
Conclusion: Whither the future prospects of Multilateralism 
 
In a world of ever greater globalization and inequality, developing countries risk increasing marginalization if due attention is not paid to their fragility. The UN and multilateralism can certainly play an important role in asserting itself to address the growing vulnerability  of many developing countries. These conditions played a leading role in the evolution of the Millennium Development Goals (2015)  and are again doing so  in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Whither the future prospects of multilateralism will be explored in Part II of this Blog.
 
Garfield Barnwell
Development Economist, Senior Advisor UN Development Agenda,
former Director Sustainable Development, CARICOM
 
 
 

​During the past two weeks, a series of books have been published on the Trump era by Joy-Ann Reid, The Man Who Sold America,  Michal Cohen, Disloyal and Bob Woodward, Rage. They add to the many others that reveal the sinister nature of the man who holds the most powerful office in the world.  These books,  drawing on empirical evidence, investigative journalism and personal knowledge portray President Trump  as narcissistic, a pathological liar, racist,  and promoter of white supremacy, among others.  They also surmise that the  cumulative effect of his mismanagement on foreign relations has contrived to transform the image of the “great”  America, into the "pity"  of the world.   In essence,  the various narratives  in these books confirm the revelatory authoritative portrait of Donald J Trump  by his niece,  Mary Trump, in her book, Too Much and  never Enough: How My Family Created The World’s most Dangerous Man (July 2020). In it, she illustrates, based on her training as a psycho pathologist and a developmental psychologist how her wealthy grandfather,  “Fred Trump both instilled and fortified his middle son’s worst qualities — Donald’s bullying, disrespect, lack of empathy, insecurity and relentless self-aggrandizement — while lavishing on him every opportunity and financing every mistake, to the point that both men came to believe the myths they had created.” See Review | The real villain of Mary Trump’s family tell-all isn’t Donald. It’s Fred.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/09/real-villain-mary-trumps-family-tell-all-isnt-donald-its-fred/
 
 What Mary Trump said of Fred Trump  is essentially true of the President’s enablers, members of his cult and the prevailing  Trump Tribalism effectively endorsed  by  Republicans in Congress and the Senate and what has been transformed  into the Trump Republican Party. Nowhere  is this more vividly demonstrated than in the way  Mr. Trump and many of his supporters and political allies  downplay  the severity of the coronavirus pandemic  and criticize public health measures deployed to prevent its spread. As  a result,  the coronavirus has spread faster and sickened or killed more people in the United States than in any of its peer nations.  At the time of writing,  the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tracker for COVID-19 for the US (September 9) shows 6,310,663 total cases; 189,147 deaths and 262,971 cases in the last 7 days.   
 
Drawing on evidence from  Bob Woodward’s book,  Rage, released yesterday, the New York Times editorial (September 10, 2020) aptly puts it:  “Mr. Trump’s lack of leadership almost certainly made the nation’s suffering greater, its death toll higher and its economic costs more severe in the long term. When the President dithered on testing and contact tracing, when he failed to make or execute a clear and effective plan for securing personal protective equipment, when he repeatedly belittled and dismissed mask mandates and other social distancing edicts, Mr. Trump knew the virus was deadly and airborne. He knew that millions of people could get sick, and many would die” ‪

Trump’s America at odds with the World 
 
It is interesting to note that while the Trump administration has confirmed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO),  the UN agency has established a Review Committee of the International Health Regulations  with membership drawn from renowned scientists to recommend changes it believes are necessary to enhance the world’s  capability for  dealing  with the next pandemic. In his press conference ahead of the UN General Assembly beginning September 15, 2020, where COVID-19 is high on the agenda,  Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director General  stated that the concerns will include  establishing firm  commitments from UN member states  to build back better. But to do so means investments  in public health for a healthier and safer future. He referred to the many examples of countries that have done well because they learned lessons from previous outbreaks of SARS, MERS, measles, polio, Ebola, flu and other diseases.  Among them and in advance of other subregions of the world, the Caribbean Community(CARICOM) was the first to eliminate polio, measles, and rubella through functional cooperation under the umbrella of the  Caribbean Cooperation in Health.   At the same time, the Trump administration disregarded  the scientific warning scenario on emerging pandemics provided by  the Obama  administration    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/trump-inauguration-warning-scenario-pandemic-132797
 
As the World prepares for the UN General Assembly next week, the emphasis on multilateralism is the hallmark of the United Nations’ 75th Anniversary Initiative (UN75). The data, gathered from hundreds of conversations, and an online survey involving some 186 countries launched in January 2020,  is the largest exercise mounted by the Organization to gather public opinion and crowdsource solutions to global challenges. The results show that around 95 percent of respondents – across all age groups and education levels – agree that countries need to work together to manage global issues. According to the UN report this almost unanimous response saw a noticeable uptick from the end of February onwards, as the spread of COVID-19began to cause major upheaval to health systems, the economy, and social norms. Prof. Cecila Cannon, Academic Advisor to the UN75 Team offers a sanguine view: “COVID-19 is a preview of the global catastrophe we are marching headlong into if we don’t find better ways of working together”. It is clear that the Trump administration has a divergent view.  It has opted out of the global  coronavirus vaccine initiative coordinated by WHO in favour of its own device.  Then, contrary to the collective statement by the pharmaceutical companies, Trump is advocating the possible release of a COVID-19 vaccine prior to the November elections, even without the required scientific phase 3 trial. That glaringly is playing politics with peoples' lives. 
 
Conclusions: Variations in Elections Outcomes  during COVID 19    
 
Several elections continue to take place around the world.  The goal has been  to address both the practical and legal questions around holding elections while also decreasing the potential for spreading the virus in a pandemic. Examples from  various sources show varying results.  In  the Republic of Korea that voted on April 15, where measures were implemented to ensure  voter participation  in the election without safety concerns,  the turnout of more than 66% was the highest in the last three decades. France cancelled its second round of local elections which was due to be held  on 29 March, after the turnout in the first round on March 22 was much lower than in previous elections. In Jamaica, which  held elections on September 3, the voter turnout at 37.5 percent was the lowest ever.  In Trinidad and Tobago, whose elections were on August 12, 2020,  voter turnout at  58% was  down from 66.8% in the  2015 elections and as with Jamaica, there were reports of a spike in the virus and a reversal of phased opening of businesses due to events related to the respective electoral campaigns.  In the US,  14 states postponed their primaries: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wyoming, as well as Puerto Rico.  
 
The Presidential Elections will take place in the US  in 53 days. Seven (7) individual polls show Biden’s  approval ratings over Trump’s ranging from 2-15 %.  However Trump’s ratings on the accumulative 358 (September 8) poll is  53.1%disapprove to 42.7%approve. Even more important is the fact that 35.1% of voters are very worried about being infected; 32.9% somewhat worried; 18.6 % not  very worried and 12.0% not worried.  While Trump’s ratings for handling COVID-19 is at 56.5% disapprove and 39.2% approve -  the partisan nature of political  cleavages is  fully illustrated  by 81.1% Republicans, 34.1% Independents and 8.2% Democrats believing he is doing a good job. 
 
Notwithstanding these polling trends, the  Youtube presentation of Woodward’s book in the link,  more than any analysis we could provide, illumines Mr. Trump’s contribution to  the human tragedy in the USA and beyond. 
Please see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJkVOs0s3mw
 
 
Eddie Greene 

"In effect America is increasingly resembling countries like Belarus" [from comment on last week's blog]  
 
A very pertinent comment raised by one reader of  last week’s blog  referred to several issues that could distort the meaningful role of polling and predictions of the 2020 US Presidential elections. They include manipulation of the psychological  dimensions of voting behaviour  through the interrelated use and/or  misuse of technology, in particular the social media;  foreign interference; voter suppression; the conflation of protests and violence with  law and order;   and  COVID-19. Consequently, I thought that this week I will reflect on the rationale and benefits of polling and on those aspects in the electoral process that could distort polling predictions.  
 
The Essence of Polling
 
 The most credible  market research services rely  on the design of a scientifically local or nationally representative sample of the population (electorate)  on the basis of which they  make   projections to the entire population. Whether the sample design is with 1,000 persons or 4,000 as is the range among  US pollsters, the most important factor is  that it precisely mirrors the national profile within small margins  (1-3%) of error. It is therefore within the margin of error for the most part, that distortions may mostly  occur.   With 60 days to the Presidential elections,  a useful gauge to voting outcomes is the accumulated averages of credible polling establishments  such as FiveThirtyEight. And while the prediction of the elections results  is of  most concern, very often the  subsets of the national polls such as marginal (swing)states, trends among certain demographics like urban women or voting turnout  of black/brown populations and  psychological factors like views on violence, commitment to specific ideologies or to tribal affiliations are equally relevant in sounding the pulse of the electorate. Then there is the distinction between the popular vote and the vote allocations from the electoral college where different states are allocated a number of electoral college votes with these accumulated votes in the final analysis determining the winner.
 
Updates on Polling Trends
 
Interestingly,  while President Trump received a slight bump following the Republican National Convention (RNC),  the following average polling results up to September 3, 2020 are relatively mixed. 

• Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump nationally by 50.3% to 43% among likely voters compared with a lead of 52% to 42% before the RNC  began.
• Trump cut into Biden’s lead among suburbanites and grew his support among white voters, though he worsened his standing with voters of color.
• Biden’s favorability numbers at 46% weakened while the president’s at 31% remained under water in national polls. 
•  It is widely regarded that based on the experience of  his winning the  2016 elections despite losing the popular vote by 3 million,  the President’s chances of winning in the electoral college might not be quite so bleak.
• Prominent pollster Nate Silver indicates that the chances of a Biden Electoral College majority are 6%  from as  little as a 0-1 percentage advantage  in the popular vote to  99% with a 6-7 percent point lead in the popular vote.  
• On law and order: 35% of the people feel  safe and 50.5 unsafe with Trump compared with 42% safe and 40% unsafe with  Biden.
• Among the active military 48% approve of Biden to 31% for Trump.

 
Just from a simple reading of these trends, if elections were held at the time of writing , Biden would be elected President.   Why then are most pollsters indicating that election results are still in the balance. This is  mainly  due to the incalculable  components revolving around   manipulation of the psychological  dimensions of voting behaviour,  including discrediting and tampering with the electoral process. What follows are examples of how the psychological dimensions are being manipulated  
 
Voter suppression and Creating Doubts about rigged elections
 
There are concerns  about  Mr. Trump’s capacity to affect the election by using the powers of his office to obstruct the voting process. Interference in the post office to slow down the outcomes of voting by mail  is a glaring example.  Trump  has  also set up the conditions to undercut confidence of the electoral process by declaring  postal votes as a predilection for  rigging the election.  This claim is  made despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  The states like Colorado and Oregon, that have created a universal vote-by-mail system years ago, are examples of overwhelming success.  Then there  is a record for a Democratic primary in the Massachusetts on September 2,  where  more than 1.5 million people voted, wait times at polling places were mostly short,  many people voted by mail, and  the results were available on election night. It was a contrast to the recent messes in Georgia (June 2020) where voting times in white areas averaged 6 minutes per voter but 51 minutes in non-white areas where lines lasted for hours and in New York (July 2020) where some results were not available for a week. Whatever the results, The  New York Times provides a poignant reminder  that Trump has questioned the veracity of an election even when he won.
 
Trump’s Universe of  Distractions 
 
 In reference to the RNC, Frank Bruni described as an “upside-down vision” of the world,  the  shameless display of loyalty to President Trump,  a universe in which the coronavirus pandemic was largely in the rear view and where, radical Democrats were portrayed as threatening  to “disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home and invite MS-13 to live next door.” In this   a universe of distraction,  the existential dangers of climate change find no place even as the  West is ravaged by wildfires and the Gulf Coast is slammed by a devastating hurricane.
 
Trump has reverted to a formula used by Nixon in the 1980s to proclaim himself as the President for Law and Order, conflating protests with violence and condoning white supremacy disruptions  on many otherwise  peaceful demonstrations. That the President could make excuses for the white youth that murdered two other white men in  the black lives matters (BLM)  protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin as self-defense,  stands in stark contrast to his lack of condemnation  of  the white police  officer that shot Jacob Blake in the back seven times leaving him paralyzed from the waist  down.  
 
Camouflaging the response to COVID19
 
COVID-19 has undoubtedly been one of the major factors contributing the President's under water favourability ratings. The RNC's  downplaying its severity,  including the largely unmasked gatherings and the popularizing of the unscientific 'herd immunity' thesis from the Whitehouse and Fox news are examples of camouflage. Most terrifying  is the attempt of the Trump campaign  to use the clout of the Presidency to influence the messages of CDC  and create the illusion of a vaccine availability by November 1,  and the role of plasma treatment to reduce spread, despite the overwhelming views of the scientific community to the contrary. But the evidence is overwhelming.  At least 1,078 new coronavirus deaths and 45,600 new cases were reported in the USA on September 3 and an average over the past week of 40,530 cases per day, a decrease of 12% from the average two weeks ago.  At the time of writing, more that 6,167,400 people are affected and at least 187,700 people have died from coronavirus. In addition, food insecurity and  persistence of hunger and the economic crisis through high  unemployment at 8.4 percent are some of the immediate deleterious effects  that highlight the dramatic income disparity on many who may or may not vote.  
 
Conclusion: Is America becoming like Belarus?
 
Voter suppression, undermining the credibility of the elections, Trump's universe of distraction,  violence in Trump’s America converted into a Law and Order prescription, and camouflaging the effects of COVID-19 are among the major sources of manipulating the psychology  of voting to which GOFAD's  valued reader referred.  There are several others including the discontinuation of face to face US Intelligence  briefings of the Congressional National Security Committee,  a glaring attempt at camouflaging Russian interference in the USA 2020 elections as it did in 2016.  Amid all this is the number of books recently produced that fully underscores  Trump’s combative and unyielding messages as a generator of the nation’s escalating polarization and violence. What is most terrifying is the quote in the subscript of this blog from a GOFAD's reader: "In effect, America is increasingly resembling countries like Belarus". This  warning is  aptly amplified by an insightful-must read  blog by Peter Laurie former Barbados Ambassador to USA and Head of its Foreign Service. He highlighted that Trump summed all this up in the slogan "make America great again  ... he tops it off by a classic fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler I alone can fix it".  TRUMPISM: The Last Gasp of White Supremacy - By: Peter Laurie | Barbados Today
https://guyaneseonline.net/2020/06/21/trumpism-the-last-gasp-of-white-supremacy-by-peter-laurie-barbados-today/
 
The good news is that the higher the  voter turnout according the  polling trends,  the greater the possibility  that voters  will " fix that"  thereby saving America from becoming Belarus.   
 
 
 Eddie Greene