The Wall Street Journal looks at the carnage:

MINNEAPOLIS—Riots took hold of U.S. cities Saturday night, as protests over the death of George Floyd turned violent across the country for a second night in a row.

Protesters lighted cars on fire in New York, Seattle and Philadelphia. In Los Angeles, demonstrators kicked in the windshields of police cars, torched a police outpost in an outdoor shopping mall, and looted Nordstrom and Ray Ban stores. Police shot rubber bullets and swung their batons at demonstrators.

In Minnesota, where protests began this week after the death of Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis police custody Monday, Gov. Tim Walz pleaded with residents to obey an 8 p.m. curfew. Mr. Walz said he was fully mobilizing the state’s National Guard after a night of rioting and violence, leaving open the possibility of requesting federal troops; forces from other states had also been readied to deploy to Minnesota.

[…]

Protests also turned violent in Miami, Philadelphia, Chicago, and other cities.

In New York, videos posted online showed a police car driving into protesters in Brooklyn. New York City Police Department officials said Sunday morning more than 340 people were arrested in protests across the city Saturday. That compares with the department total of 208 people arrested Friday. The officials said 47 police vehicles were vandalized in Saturday’s demonstrations, including a number of vehicles that were set on fire, and 33 NYPD officers were injured.

In Washington, D.C., protesters near the White House hurled items including fireworks at the police, and law enforcement used pepper spray on the crowd. The District of Columbia National Guard was activated to help the U.S. Park Police with the protests, the guard said in a statement on Facebook on Saturday night.

I do not find the notion that three months of lockdowns are irrelevant to the rioting and looting or, indeed, to the police reaction credible. The most modest lesson that should be drawn is that, if you impose a lengthy lockdown, you’ve got to be prepared for civil disorder as the lockdowns are removed. Tensions and boredom build. They will seek an outlet.

What began with demonstrations in Chicago rapidly degenerated into rioting and looting. ABC 7 Chicago reports:

CHICAGO (WLS) — Downtown businesses began the large task of cleaning up Sunday morning, after violent protests erupted across the city Saturday.

Many convenience stores, fast food chains and clothing stores had windows knocked out or graffiti strewn across their facades. Crews could be seen boarding up windows and cleaning buildings early Sunday.

Most of the bridges connecting the Loop to River North remained up, and numerous lane and road closures remained in effect.

Chicago police said they could not immediately provide additional information related to the protests Sunday but said mass arrests were taking place. Those in custody were being transported to various stations across the city.

At least four people were shot, one fatally, amid the protests. The fatal shooting happened about 11 p.m. in River North.

The number of homicides in Chicago in 2020 has already exceeded the toll in either 2019 or 2018 and is well on its way to meeting or exceeding the number in 2017. Last night we received a call informing us of a citywide curfew, the first of my recollection.

There are also some reports of so-called “protesters” actively impeding police officers and firefighters, jamming police frequencies, or even setting fire to police cars. That isn’t protest; it’s rioting. I urge the media to stop sugar-coating things. Rioters are rioters; looters are looters.

I would also point out that if, as a demonstrator, you impede the police you have assumed an affirmative responsibility to restrain rioters including by force. I have also heard of some incidents of that taking place for which kudos and thanks.

None of this should come as a surprise and it’s only partly about the homicide that took place in Minneapolis. Chicagoans have long-standing grievances against the police, too, and the reforms that have taken place have not been sufficient to redress those grievances. One of the reasons that Lori Lightfoot was elected mayor was in the hope that she would bring reform.

Grievances even just grievances don’t justify rioting and looting. Businesses that have been barely struggling by during the lockdown including those that have continued to pay their employees now have an additional burden imposed on them.

Mayor Lightfoot has a challenge ahead of her. She needs to show both more grace and more leadership than she has lately.

Like most of us I think I have been horrified at the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis by a police officer, caught on video, and the aftermath of rioting, looting, and destruction there. The center of the rioting appears to be just a few blocks from where one of my siblings and spouse had their first house and where their kids grew up. I am hearing reports that some of the greatest destruction is being wrought by agents provocateurs, people who don’t live in the neighborhood, and are acting less from outrage over racism and more from a more generalized hatred.

Among the many tragic aspects of the whole matter is that the businesses that are being destroyed in the rioting are ones on which the people who live in the neighborhood depend and which will not soon be rebuilt.

Now I hear that there has been rioting in Atlanta, New York, and Los Angeles.

There are so many moving parts in these riots. Racism, an us vs. them attitude I have found quite prevalent among police officers in which “us” means police officers and “them” is everybody else. Don’t discount the long lockdowns. It’s like when you remove the cap from a bottle and the bottle explodes.

I’m afraid it will be a long, hot summer.

Speaking of Taiwan you may find this piece by Charu Sudan Kasturi at OZY analyzing President Xi’s recent moves, especially as they relate to Taiwan, interesting. I agree with this passage:

What better way to get people to rally around the flag and the leader than to create the threat of an external enemy? China knew that its proposed law for Hong Kong would spark criticism and threats of punishment from the West. That in turn allows Beijing to paint the U.S. as a villain looking to erode China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong.

China is doubling down on this approach, with tensions also rising along its largely disputed border with India, where New Delhi has accused the People’s Liberation Army of repeated infiltration over the past week. It’s a growing crisis that the West has largely ignored so far, but fits in with Beijing’s overall posture these past few days.

but there’s a considerable portion of it about which I am skeptical. For example:

But Beijing’s moves aren’t only about Hong Kong. Its real target is Taiwan, and political legitimacy in mainland China for President Xi Jinping, whose credibility has taken a beating over his handling of the coronavirus crisis.

The reason that I am skeptical is reflected later in the piece:

China is doubling down on this approach, with tensions also rising along its largely disputed border with India, where New Delhi has accused the People’s Liberation Army of repeated infiltration over the past week. It’s a growing crisis that the West has largely ignored so far, but fits in with Beijing’s overall posture these past few days.

I find the notion that provoking tensions along the China-India border, cracking down on Hong Kong, and saber-rattling against Taiwan are all focused on Taiwan. I don’t think they’re three different things but all the same thing—increased aggression coupled with a sense of urgency.

Which brings me to this:

For all its bluster, China knows it can’t hope to regain Taiwan as a part of the motherland anytime soon. But it also can’t afford to see the self-ruled territory gain greater diplomatic weight. So it’s responding with its own stern messages — both direct and indirect.

I wonder what would lead him to say that? I don’t think that China is sending messages. I think it’s moving to reclaim what it sees as its rightful property.

If my suspicions are right, expect China to start rattling its saber in the direction of Vladivostok. There may even be a pretext as, for example, trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19 into its northeastern province.

I’m a bit late to this party but you might find the interview above from France 24 of Chen Chien-Jen, Vice President of Taiwan and, coincidentally, an epidemiologist, as informative as I did. He quite discreet but the interview is quite damning of the WHO and mildly critical of China.

Heaven knows there are a lot of things to complain about in what President Trump says and does or fails to say or do. IMO the lamest complaint is about the lack of a national plan for dealing with COVID-19. What earthly good would such a plan be other than to be something else for journalists to complain about and something else for state and local authorities to ignore? The reality is that under our system the federal government has precious little way of compelling the states to do anything and the primary responsibility for domestic matters resides in state governments which in turn supervise local governments which are generally strictly subordinate to them.

Whenever I hear such complaints I always think the same thing. “Complete the following sentence. President Trump should declare nationwide martial law because…” That’s what a national plan would take.

Those who think the federal government should be running everything in the country are betraying their blissful ignorance of how governments in the U. S. actually work. States are responsible for practically everything. The federal government is responsible for relatively little other than the military and foreign policy. As Pete Fisher aptly put it 20 years ago the federal government is an insurance company with an army.

I was disappointed by Sadanand Dhume’s Wall Street Journal column on the increased tension on the India-China border, largely fomented by China. I just didn’t see much value-added in it except for this:

Nitin Pai, co-founder of the Takshashila Institution, a Bangalore-based think tank, says Beijing’s aggressive stance toward India, as reflected in its current provocation on the border, is part of the country’s “sharper and more confrontational” foreign policy in the Covid era. Since the start of the pandemic, China has found itself embroiled in spats with, among others, the U.S., Australia and Taiwan. It has also stepped up naval patrols in the disputed South China Sea.

Mr. Pai says Beijing is being foolish by choosing confrontation with India, a nation of 1.3 billion people with a median age of 27. “They are going to live for a long time, and they are going to remember you as an enemy,” he says. “You may win a mountain peak or a valley, but you are going to make enemies for life.”

I’ve said it before. I just don’t understand China’s sudden change not merely in policy but in the time horizon of its actions. Previously famous for taking a longer view President Xi seems to be considering only the near term. Why the rush? Is he running out of time?

In his latest Washington Post column Fareed Zakaria warns about “stage two” of the pandemic—the expansion of SARS-CoV-2 into the global south:

In much of the developed world, the coronavirus curve is slowly flattening, but this obscures a tragic reality — the second phase of the crisis has begun as the novel virus spreads to the developing world. Ten of the top 12 countries with the largest number of new confirmed infections are now from the ranks of emerging economies, led by Brazil, Russia, India, Peru and Chile. The resulting devastation would likely reverse years, if not decades, of economic progress.

I found this part of his analysis reasonable:

Nursing homes, which have accounted for a large share of deaths in wealthy countries, are uncommon in the developing world, so the elderly are not clustered together. Heat may have some effect in reducing the spread of the virus. Some medical experts privately speculate that the populations in these countries have stronger immune systems because they have been exposed to many more diseases over their lifetimes.

There is another possibility. The developing world was spared the disease in the early months because it was less connected, by travel and trade, to the initial hot spots (China and Europe). In the past few weeks, however, the coronavirus has moved slowly but steadily across South Asia and Latin America. Brazil now has about 1,000 recorded deaths a day — and cases are rising exponentially. Africa has not had a large spike in confirmed cases — so far — but anecdotal evidence suggests the disease is spreading there as well. The Wall Street Journal reports that in the northern Nigerian city of Kano, gravediggers are running out of space and have resorted to burying corpses between existing graves or putting multiple bodies in a single grave.

However, he fails to mention the reasons for optimism. The prevalence and morbidity of COVID-19 throughout the developing world and in the global south in particular remain extremely low. He mentioned Nigeria. The deaths/1M due to COVID-19 there are 1; the cases/1M are 43. That’s as good or better than the best European countries or U. S. states.

The reason might be as simple as sunshine. Demographics are definitely on their side. The average age in Nigeria, for example, is 17.9 compared with the average age in Italy of 46.5. There just aren’t as many old people. The comorbidities most frequently associated with bad outcomes in COVID-19—COPD, diabetes, and so on—are diseases of wealth.

Nonetheless you will recall I have been warning of the potential for truly disastrous outcomes in the developing world for months now.

Mr. Zakaria provides no suggestions for what we can do to improve the situation in the developing world. The single most important thing we could do is get the U. S. economy back on its feet again. We are among the biggest customers for the goods of most of the countries of the developing world. China is only a major trading partner for most of them because it sells to them not that it buys. A U. S. consumer able and willing to buy the goods produced by the countries of the global south will keep them from losing all of that economic ground about which Mr. Zakaria is so concerned.

Do you know what the second most important thing we could do is? Reduce the subsidies paid to our own agricultural sector.

I do not know whether our present arms control treaties are effective or what it would take to make them effective. The editors of the Washington Post are convinced that they’re effective and essential:

ARMS CONTROL treaties are only as good as the willpower of the countries that sign them. Binding, verifiable agreements help reduce dangers but only when the signatories adhere to them. What’s happening now is a crisis of confidence that is causing the old arms control system to break down. There’s plenty of blame to spread around, including Russia and the United States.

The latest example is President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Open Skies treaty, a modest confidence-building agreement signed in 1992 that went into force in 2002. With 34 signatory nations, it has proved a useful pact, allowing signatories to carry out short-notice, unarmed overflights of other countries with airplanes using sensors that detect and record military activity on the ground. The images aren’t as detailed as U.S. satellites can obtain, but benefit allies that lack the satellites.

This claim caught my attention:

Treaty signatories Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden said the pact remains “functioning and useful.”

Ahem. Consider this sorry reckoning. Not one country in that list spends more than 1.3% of GDP (the suggested amount for NATO members is 2%) and several spend a lot less. The only country in that list capable of projecting force beyond its own borders is France. In other that’s a list of free riders, dependent on U. S. military spending for their own defense. Of course they want to maintain the treaty. There’s no downside risk for their doing so. We bear all of the risk.

Do you know what would make the U. S. safer? We could stop bombing European capitols without UN Security Council authorization as we are treaty-bound to do. We could stop extending NATO membership into Russia’s near abroad, something we said we would not do. We could stop exploiting UN Security Council authorizations to overthrow other countries’ legitimate governments. We could stop overthrowing other countries’ legitimate governments without UNSC authorization.

Some version of the Golden Rule is a cultural universal, frequently in the negative form (“Do not do unto others…”). We could try that. For example, if we don’t want other countries to interfere in our elections we might consider not interfering in theirs.

I would put the editorial’s opening sentence slightly differently. Arms control treaties only remain relevant as long as they’re in the interests of the major signatories. Is the Open Skies treaty in Russia’s interest? Ours? How about the North Atlantic Treaty? If it’s still relevant to its members (see above) why are so many of them not holding up their end of the deal?