The President and his Secretary are currently enjoying their attacks at the World Health Organisation WHO which they accuse of being excessively close to China and having hidden vital information on the scope and danger of the Covid pandemic in its early stages, thus allegedly preventing the U.S. and the world from taking timely action. To emphasize his displeasure, the President blocked all payments to WHO. When the German foreign minister Maas had the temerity to address President Trump, asking him to reinstate the U.S. contributions to the world body in order to ensure its proper functioning during the Covid crisis, he received a bruising answer lecturing him on America’s role in the history of the global agency.
The entire affair reveals a stunning lack of understanding of the world body and the way it works.
First things first: there is no WHO as an independent organization that can take autonomous decisions, favor certain governments over others and can hide information from member governments.
The WHO is like all United Nations agencies an intergovernmental body consisting of a Director General and his or her secretariat, working under close governmental oversight.
A member government criticizing WHO resembles Don Quijote’s battle against the windmill. The United States is prominently represented on the governing bodies of WHO. Due to its dominant contribution to the agencies’ regular budget, the American representatives are very influential, receive all available information, and enjoy instant access to the Director General.
There is a two-tier oversight body guiding the Director General, the Executive Board and the World Health Assembly, both made up of government representatives. Numerous committees and commissions are taking care of individual health issues, staffed by government representatives and individual experts nominated by governments.
In addition, there are hundreds of American nationals members of the staff of WHO or serving as experts. Most of them probably have close ties to Washington, D.C., to American universities or are outposted U.S. government officials. Taken together, they are keeping a running watch on what WHO is planning and doing.
Given this framework, how could WHO favor one country (China) over another one (the U.S.), as President Trump alleges? All UN agencies are essentially government clubs. The agency heads are expected to serve the member governments. For an agency chief it is not done to criticize an individual government. To praise is permissible, to criticize is unheard of.
The current Director General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is an Ethiopian nominated by the former TPLF-dominated government which had socialist roots. He is accused by Washington of being subservient to China which allegedly supported his candidacy for the position of DG. Be it as it may.
The structure of UN agencies allows an agency head to populate the staff with candidates from his or her region. Tedros. for instance, could favor Africans for vacant or newly created posts if he wished to do so – which is not sure. But pandering to China is outside of his reach.
He praised China for its radical lockdown policy in the early days of the Wuhan-originated epidemy, but so did President Donald Trump. Both gentlemen probably hoped that the epidemy would remain isolated in China, not knowing that it had already spread over much of the world.
The technical agencies of the United Nations are the global equivalent of government ministries. WHO functions like a world health ministry. Weakening its work during a pandemic has a somewhat suicidal connotation.
True to tradition, the U.S. government has suspended its payments to WHO. America is the only member state that exploits its role as major contributor by withholding contributions to UN agencies whenever it is dissatisfied with the organization’s policies or performance. UNESCO, for instance, fell victim of such blackmail, usually because of the Palestinian problem.
In putting thumbscrews on an agency, various U.S. administrations revealed a rather limited understanding of democracy. Everywhere in the United Nations family of organizations, developing countries constitute the majority of member states. Whenever they take a decision the White House does not like– for instance to admit Palestine as a member – Washington cuts off the funding. Of course other rich member countries could pick up the tab and provide the agency with extra-budgetary funds to replace, at least partly, the missing U.S. contribution.
Why don’t they do that in the current case of WHO? Because they fear that Washington will say: thank you, and reduce its future contributions as it already did as regards the UN by insisting on a ceiling limiting individual contributions.
The ongoing U.S.-China spat is less about the pandemic; it’s more about winning elections. Many Americans, especially conservative ones, don’t like the United Nations anyway. Bashing them is popular; withholding contributions seems thrifty. America first!
Heinrich von Loesch
Written on .
Desinization is a term known in Taiwan. Sinization, desinization and resinization are narratives of the Taiwanese people's confrontation with their Chinese past, their present striving for autonomy, and the future that China intends for them.
Europe? Its geographical position "at the other end of the world" does not save Europe from having to deal with China claiming hegemony. At present, Europe is in a phase of sinization: gentler and more gradual than the processes ongoing in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but just as focused and determined 1).
Sinization: a big word for Chinese investment in the infrastructure of poor European countries such as Greece and Montenegro, as well as in the industries and economies of rich countries such as Germany, France and Italy. Sinization also means China's attempts to exert massive influence on politics and public opinion; for example, Beijing's campaign to deny that the SARS Cov 2 virus originated in Wuhan.
There is no doubt that China sees itself as the nascent hegemon to serve. The more the self-destruction of the US in the Trump mess progresses; the longer the Covid epidemic paralyses the still largest economy in the world; the more China is being offered the role of the new hegemon. China wants to prevent Trump's re-election, the incumbent claims. Ridiculous: China could not wish for a better ally than Trump if he had another four years to put the world at China's feet.
This possibility of another Trump term of office should make it clear to Europe that afterwards China will be the big shot. Many Americans traditionally reject international institutions such as the United Nations because they believe there is already one highest global authority, the President of the United States. China is no different: during the unrest in Hong Kong, the vast majority of mainland Chinese supported the government's tough course against their cousins in Hong Kong.
Why should Europe switch from sinization to desinization? Simply because the once benevolent hegemon USA, who protected and promoted Europe, is increasingly being replaced by a strict and selfish hegemon: China. This new supreme power has no emotional and kinship ties to Europe: no shared family histories, few friendships. It does not dream of Versailles, Heidelberg or the Highlands. For Beijing, Europe is a market, a potential vassal, at best a competitor. Just as Ankara's Erdogan, supported by millions of diaspora Turks, is brazenly meddling in German affairs, China is also exerting its influence in Germany, based on the power of its close economic ties.
If Europe wants to avoid being told by Beijing what is right and what is wrong, it must choose the path of desinization. That means first and foremost: economic disengagement. It is not enough, as Anders Fogh Rasmussen* suggests, to subject Chinese investments in strategically important European companies to a control and approval procedure based on the Spanish model.
It is not enough to closely monitor which infrastructural projects China is prepared to finance in virus-weakened countries such as Italy as part of the New Silk Road. In addition to these defensive measures, an active strategy is also required, namely the pursuit of a gradual reduction in Europe's economic ties with China. Gradually, cautiously, but targeted. The concept of China being the "extended workbench" of European companies should be considered redundant.
It is obvious that large American and European industries are no longer viable without the hard-working Chinese, without the fine fingers and sharp eyes of Chinese women on the assembly lines. Nowhere else in the world, according to the opinion of American enterpreneurs**, is there a better place to do fine work than in China. It is no longer just the production costs that make China unbeatable: it is also the quality of the work.
Knowing this, American and European companies have been trying for several years to lower costs and be less dependent by moving to other countries: Vietnam, Kampuchea, Thailand, Indonesia. The results have always been disappointing. What does this mean for Europe?
The only hope of escaping the dependence on China's workers is offered by artificial intelligence. Until now, it was common practice to develop technically sophisticated devices in Europe, have them manufactured in China and sell them as Made in Germany/France/Italy. One can hope that AI will allow to bring production to Europe that can match Chinese quality and flexibility. This would be a high goal which can only be achieved if politicians identify with it.
What we need is not a discriminatory policy that puts obstacles in the way of Made in PRC, but a policy that makes it possible to produce Chinese quality competitively in Europe by means of hi-tech.
China as a workbench is only one aspect of European dependencies. Another one is the importance of the Chinese market for European exports. This is certainly no problem regarding perfumes and baby food, but it is for automobiles and machinery. Every news of record sales in China is prima facie welcome, but its flipside means that the manufacturer is becoming more dependent on the Chinese market and its unpredictable and omnipotent one-party government.
Europe would be well advised to gradually reduce the interdependence of its economy with China, despite all the benefits of globalisation. The economic gain of an ever closer embrace with China does not outweigh the loss of political independence to an ever more rigorous hegemon.
If Europe wants to retain its autonomy in the long term, it must reduce China's potential for exerting pressure.
Heinrich von Loesch
1)
An excellent presentation of China's strategy in Europe offers the Estonian annual secret service report
"According to the current and former officials, the US Commerce Department, State and other agencies are increasingly searching for ways to push companies to move both sourcing and manufacturing out of China. Tax incentives and potential re-shoring subsidies are alongside measures being considered to spur changes."
Update 2
... beyond politics, there “really is deep distrust of being too closely aligned” with China, especially when it comes to rare earths, technology and medical or pharmaceutical equipment, he said. At least a partial decoupling in some of these sectors is a “very real” possibility. Americans want to be more self-sufficient and certainly not bound to China, he added. (CNBC)
Written on .
Italian politicians and media were incensed when a German daily warned that the mafias were preparing to snap up the European rescue funds expected to come from Brussels. But the newspapers' concern is unfortunately justified. For decades, the mafias sent some of their best young people to Rome to take up those jobs in the central administration which the proud northern Italians shunned because they preferred to work in the local industrial economy. Therefore the mafias are not only entrenched in the South where they are currently supplanting the government unable to feed and soothe the poor during the epidemy. The term "money laundering" assumes a new dimension when only the mafias possess the liquidity to provide small and medium size businesses with enough credit to stave off or postpone bankruptcy. Already before the corona crisis, the mafias were probably the largest employers in Italy. The crisis can help them to acquire a huge portfolio of companies and really start dominating the Italian economy.
Two Italian judges, Giovanni Zaccaro and Nino Di Matteo, have sent a letter to the High Council of Justice (CSM), a constitutional advisory body, urging four amendments to the project of the law governing the disburdements of huge public funds to Italian companies claiming to being ravaged by the corona virus:
C’è il rischio che la criminalità possa approfittare del decreto Imprese. E intascare le somme destinate, attraverso prestiti, alle aziende in difficoltà a causa dell’emergenza coronavirus. Un rischio che va scongiurato, cambiando o integrando il provvedimento, per evitare che mafiosi, corrotti o evasori fiscali traggano vantaggio dalla crisi portata dal Covid-19. Anche a discapito degli imprenditori onesti.
There is a risk that criminals may take advantage of the Enterprise Decree. And pocket the money allocated, through loans, to companies in difficulty due to the coronavirus emergency. A risk that must be averted, by changing or supplementing the measure, to prevent mafiosi, corrupt people or tax evaders from taking advantage of the crisis brought by Covid-19. Even to the detriment of honest entrepreneurs
Roberto Saviano, of Gomorrha fame and Die Zeit author, reminds us:
Per osservare l’ultima epidemia che ha visto il crimine organizzato arricchirsi, bisogna andare indietro al 1884, quando Napoli fu devastata dal colera. Più del 50% dei decessi si registrò a Napoli. Affinché una simile strage non accadesse più, il Parlamento italiano approvò una legge per il risanamento della città di Napoli e stanziò 100 milioni di lire per le opere di bonifica. Da quel risanamento guadagnarono tutti: appaltatori corrotti e senza scrupoli, ditte che vincevano le gare al ribasso per poi eseguire lavori incompleti o di cattiva fattura, politici alleati delle famiglie di camorra. Tutti, tranne la città di Napoli. La relazione della Commissione d’inchiesta di Giuseppe Saredo del 1900 parlava già allora di un’opera di «alta camorra». Fu una speculazione così evidente che lo storico Pasquale Villari arrivò a dire: «Meglio il colera che il Risanamento».
To observe the last epidemy that saw organised crime get rich, one must go back to 1884, when Naples was devastated by the cholera. More than 50% of deaths occurred in Naples. In order that such a massacre would not happen again, the Italian Parliament passed a law for the restoration of the city of Naples and allocated 100 million lire for the improvement works. Everybody earned from that restoration: corrupt and unscrupulous contractors, companies that won the tenders with low offers and then carried out incomplete or shoddy works, politicians with ties to the Camorra families. All profited except the city of Naples. The report of Giuseppe Saredo's Inquiry Commission of 1900 already spoke of a work of the "high Camorra". It was such an obvious speculation that the historian Pasquale Villari went so far as to say: "Better cholera than restoration".
"They (the mafias) are providing everyday necessities in poor neighborhoods, offering credit to businesses on the verge of bankruptcy and planning to siphon off a chunk of the billions of euros being lined up in stimulus funds."
In order to understand Italy's current exposure to the cunning and wealth of the mafias, it is useful to remember the origin of the mafia in 18th century Sicily. In those days, the island was governed by Spanish viceroys who treated it as one among many Spanish colonies. Governors of Mexico or Peru could be transferred to Palermo and vice versa, and with them relocated the Spanish court and bureaucracy.
Small wonder that the local population showed little sympathy and respect for the oppressive and haughty Spaniards. In order to mislead the sbirre, the police serving the Spanish rule, the population developed a secret language, a dialect full of double meanings which remains traditional to this day.
Denis Mack Smith, the great British historian, in his History of Sicily described how in the 18th century the local Sicilian clergy of the Beati Paoli established a secret shadow administration competing with the Spanish rule. The purpose of this secret government was to permit some degree of equitable justice, to protect the people from oppression and to counteract the brutality of the sbirre.
This parallel government of the Beati Paoli later morphed into a tool of criminals known as Mafia or Cosa Nostra but never quite abandoned its orginal mission of a being government of the people serving the people.
With the emergency created in the deep South by the current virus lockdown, the "Mafia groups returning to their core businesses of protection and governance", as Zora Hauser, a researcher into organized crime at Oxford University, said.
After the end of the Spanish rule and the Kingdom of the two Sicilies, southern Italy became dominated by the northern monarchy of Savoy. The rulers had changed but the people again felt exploited and oppressed and continued to look for the mafias as their real government. A basic feeling which continues strong to this day.
"In tante parti si sente uno degli effetti di questa pandemia, che tante famiglie che hanno bisogno fanno la fame. Purtroppo li 'aiuta' il gruppo degli usurai. Questa è un'altra pandemia sociale: famiglie di gente che ha lavoro giornaliero o purtroppo in nero con figli e non hanno da mangiare e poi gli usurai prendono loro il poco che hanno".
"In many regions, one of the effects of this pandemic is that so many families in need are starving. Unfortunately, the bunch of usurers "helps" them. This is another social pandemic: there are families of day laborers or unfortunately those working as black labor who have children but no food and then the usurers take away what little they have".
The 376 bosses released. Here's the confidential list that alarms the prosecutors... Sent home in the last month and a half because of the pandemic. From Palermo to Naples to Milan.
Desinisierung ist ein Begriff aus Taiwan. Sinisierung, Desinisierung und Resinisierung sind Narrative der Auseinandersetzung der Taiwanesen mit ihrer chinesischen Vergangenheit, ihrer nach Autonomie strebenden Gegenwart, und der ihnen von China zugedachten Zukunft.
Europa? Die geografische Lage “am anderen Ende der Welt” bewahrt Europa nicht davor, sich mit Chinas Hegemoniestreben befassen zu müssen. Gegenwärtig befindet sich Europa in der Phase der Sinisierung: sanfter zwar und gradueller als es die Abläufe in Hongkong und Taiwan sind, doch ebenso zielgerichtet und nachdrücklich 1).
Sinisierung: ein grosses Wort für die chinesischen Investitionen in die Infrastruktur armer europäischer Länder wie Griechenland und Montenegro, in die Industrien und die Wirtschaft reicher Länder wie Deutschland, Frankreich und Italien. Sinisierung bedeuten aber auch die Versuche Chinas, massiv Einfluss zu nehmen in die Gestaltung von Politik und öffentlicher Meinung; beispielsweise Pekings Kampagne, die Herkunft des SARS Cov 2 Virus aus Wuhan zu leugnen.
Ganz fraglos sieht sich China als der neue Hegemon, dem man zu Diensten sein soll. Je stärker die Selbstlähmung der USA in den Trump-Wirren fortschreitet, je länger die Covid-Epidemie die noch weltgrösste Wirtschaft lähmt, desto deutlicher fällt China die Hegemonie in den Schoss. China will Trumps Wiederwahl verhindern, behauptet der Amtsinhaber. Lächerlich: China könnte sich keinen besseren Verbündeten als Trump wünschen, falls er weitere vier Jahre Zeit hätte, die Welt China zu Füssen zu legen.
Diese Möglichkeit sollte Europa klar machen, dass spätestens nach einer weiteren Amtszeit Trumps China der grosse Zampano sein wird. Viele Amerikaner lehnen traditionell internationale Institutionen wie die Vereinten Nationen ab, denn es gibt ja eine höchste Instanz auf Erden, nämlich den Präsidenten der USA. Es reicht, ihn zu fragen, wenn man wissen will, was richtig und was falsch ist. Nicht anders China: während der Unruhen in Hongkong unterstützten die allermeisten Festlandschinesen den harten Kurs der Regierung gegen die Vettern in Hongkong.
Warum sollte Europa eine Kehrtwende von der Sinisierung zur Desinisierung vollziehen? Ganz einfach, weil der ehedem gutwillige Hegemon USA, der Europa schützte und förderte, zusehends durch einen strengen und selbstsüchtigen Hegemon China abgelöst wird. Diese neue Vormacht hat keine emotionalen und verwandschaftlichen Bindungen an Europa: keine gemeinsamen Familiengeschichten, wenig Freundschaften. Sie träumt sich nicht nach Versailles, nach Heidelberg oder in die Highlands. Für Peking ist Europa ein Markt, ein potentieller Vasall, allenfalls ein Konkurrent. So unverfroren wie Ankaras Erdogan, gestützt auf Millionen Diaspora-Türken, in Deutschland auftritt, so tritt China hier auf, gestützt auf die enge wirtschaftliche Verflechtung.
Wenn Europa vermeiden will, von Peking gesagt zu bekommen, was richtig und was falsch ist, muss es den Weg der Desinisierung gehen. Das heisst in erster Linie: wirtschaftliche Entflechtung. Es reicht nicht, wie Anders Fogh Rasmussen* fordert, chinesische Beteiligungen an strategisch wichtigen europäischen Unternehmen einem Kontroll- und Bewilligungsverfahren nach spanischem Vorbild zu unterziehen.
Es reicht nicht, mit Luchsaugen zu überwachen, welche infrastrukturellen Vorhaben China in Virus-geschwächten Ländern wie Italien im Rahmen der Neuen Seidenstrasse zu finanzieren bereit ist. Es ist neben diesen defensive Massnahmen auch eine aktive Strategie erforderlich, nämlich das Streben nach graduellem Abbau der wirtschaftlichen Verflechtungen Europas mit China. Graduell, behutsam, aber nachdrücklich. China als “verlängerte Werkbank” europäischer Firmen sollte als ein Konzept der Vergangenheit gelten.
Es ist offenkundig, dass ein grosser Teil der amerikanischen und europäïschen Industrie ohne die fleissigen Chinesen, ohne die feinen Finger und scharfen Augen der Frauen nicht mehr lebensfähig ist. Nirgendwo auf der Welt kann nach übereinstimmender Meinung amerikanischer Bosse** besser Feinarbeit geleistet werden, als in China. Es sind nicht mehr nur die Produktionskosten, die China unschlagbar machen: es ist mittlerweile die Qualität der Arbeit.
Dies wissend, haben amerikanische und europäische Firmen seit einigen Jahren versucht, in andere Länder auszuweichen: nach Vietnam, Kampuchea, Thailand, Indonesien, Indien. Immer war das Ergebnis enttäuschend. Was heisst das für Europa?
Die einzige Hoffnung, aus der Abhängigkeit von Chinas Arbeitern zu entkommen, bietet die künstliche Intelligenz. Bislang war es üblich, technisch anspruchsvolle Geräte in Europa zu entwickeln, in China fertigen zu lassen, und als Made in Germany/France/Italy zu verkaufen. Man kann hoffen, dass KI es erlauben wird, Fertigung nach Europa zu holen, die der chinesischen Qualität und Flexibilität entsprechen kann. Das wäre ein hohes Ziel, das nur erreicht werden kann, wenn sich die Politik damit identifiziert.
Was wir brauchen, ist keine diskriminatorische Politk, die dem Made in PRC Steine in den Weg legt, sondern eine Politik, die es möglich macht, mittels HiTech chinesische Qualität wettbewerbsfähig in Europa zu erzeugen.
China als Werkbank ist nur ein Aspekt der europäischen Abhängigkeiten. Ein anderer ist die Bedeutung des chinesischen Markts für Europas Exporte. Bei Parfums und Kindernahrung ist das sicherlich kein Problem, wohl aber bei Autos und Maschinen. Jede Meldung über einen Absatzrekord in China ist zwar prima facie erfreulich, bedeutet aber im Umkehrschluss eine verstärkte Abhängigkeit des Herstellers vom chinesischen Markt und seiner ebenso unberechenbaren wie allmächtigen Einparteien-Regierung.
Europa wäre gut beraten, die Verflechtung seiner Wirtschaft mit China trotz allem Streben nach Globalisierung schrittweise abzubauen. Der wirtschaftliche Gewinn einer immer engeren Umarmung wiegt nicht den Verlust politischer Unabhängigkeit an einen immer drastischer auftretenden Hegemon auf.
Will Europa auf lange Sicht selbsbestimmend bleiben, muss es das Druckpotential Chinas vermindern.
Seit US-Präsident Donald Trump die verschleiernde Strategie Chinas zu Beginn der SARS-Cov2 Pandemie zum Anlass nimmt, China wahlwirksam als neues Feindbild aufzubauen, bemüht sich die US-Regierung verstärkt, die wirtschaftliche Abhängigkeit des Landes von China zu vemindern. So soll die Desinisierung vollzogen werden:
"According to the current and former officials, the US Commerce Department, State and other agencies are increasingly searching for ways to push companies to move both sourcing and manufacturing out of China. Tax incentives and potential re-shoring subsidies are alongside measures being considered to spur changes.
"Nach Angaben jetziger und früherer Beamten suchen das US-Handelsministerium, das Außenministerium und andere Behörden zunehmend nach Möglichkeiten, Unternehmen dazu zu bewegen, sowohl die Beschaffung als auch die Produktion aus China heraus zu verlagern. Steuerliche Anreize und potenzielle Heimkehr-Subventionen stehen neben weiteren Maßnahmen, die in Betracht gezogen werden, um Veränderungen zu beschleunigen.".
The media sector and press, in particular, were already in bad shape in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA). Like elsewhere, years of falling revenues, digitalization, poor quality content and co-option by authorities have led to a decrease both in the number of printed newspapers and readership.
COVID-19 is the latest blow to the print journalism sector. With several governments across the region suspending print newspapers, printed media is a silent victim of the virus:
March 17, 2020: In Jordan, the Jordanian Council of Ministers suspended the publication of all newspapers “because they help the transmission of the pandemic“.
March 22, 2020: In Oman, the Supreme Committee for Dealing with COVID-19 ordered all newspapers, magazines and other publications to cease printing and circulating. In Morocco, the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, suspended all publication and distribution of printed editions because “a large number of people use print paper on a daily basis, this contributes to the spread of the virus, making it necessary to ban the paper to protect the health of citizens.”
March 23, 2020: In Yemen, the minister of communications from the internationally-recognized Hadi government issued a decree suspending print newspapers as a preventive measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
March 24, 2020: In the UAE, the National Media Council has stopped the distribution of all print newspapers and magazines.
The succession of prohibitions, across the region, against print newspapers further destabilize further a fragile industry and cause a vacuum in information circulation.
For journalists already battling precarious working conditions, these shutdowns will inflict serious financial repercussions if not redundancy.
The Jordanian Syndicate of Journalists has called on the government to urgently support the sector and save the journalists. “Hundreds of journalists and workers in the print industry are without income and may lose their jobs,” the syndicate said, adding that the government should “find adequates measures that will allow print newspapers to resume [publication].’’
For readers, these measures negatively impact their right to access information. The ban in Yemen, for example, has an even deeper impact as internet penetration is low at just 25% in 2019, — and mainly concentrated among youth in urban areas. It is not clear how and if print readership will shift to online media and who will fill in this vacuum.
Having access to reliable fact-based information is essential, especially during a crisis when people turn to the media to understand the situation and get practical information. Yet, most governments in the region — perpetuating old authoritarian practices — have instead attempted to control and restrict freedom of expression.
In reality, there is no evidence or correlation between the circulation of print newspapers and the spread of COVID 19. It has been deemed safe to receive packages such as newspapers, even from areas that have reported high cases of COVID-19.
Therefore, decisions to shut down print papers is possibly politically motivated and not based on scientific evidence.
While in Iraq, protesters continue to defy the lockdown and clash with the police to protest the assassination of anti-government activists, political movements and protests in Algeria and Lebanon were thwarted with the adoption of social distancing and bans on gatherings.
An Algerian activist, who requested to remain anonymous, told Global Voices:
They could not have dreamed of it. This virus is a benediction for the authorities. It gave them the excuse to stop us gathering and protesting for change that in other circumstances we would never have accepted.
Now that print is dead in some countries in the region, there is no guarantee that it will appear again. As there is no timeline or indication of when and if newspapers will be able, one day, to be in kiosks again, could the simple act of picking up a print newspaper or magazine become a distant memory in countries like Jordan, Yemen, Morocco?
