Tonga’s first COVID-19 case enters from New Zealand

John Braddock

The Pacific nation of Tonga last week recorded its first COVID-19 case after a traveler from New Zealand tested positive.

Nuku'alofa, capital of Tonga (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Along with several Pacific neighbours, Tonga was among the few nations in the world to have avoided an outbreak of COVID-19 due to its geographic isolation and strict border closures. The positive case was one of 215 Tongan citizens on a repatriation flight from Christchurch on October 27.

Tonga’s Health Ministry released a statement Wednesday night saying a second test had returned a negative result. Another test is required to confirm this. A genomic study also needs to be done in New Zealand to check if the virus is the Delta variant. Meanwhile, precautions will remain in place.

The Tongan government announced Monday that the main island of Tongatapu would go into lockdown for one week. Banks and the market will stay open, however schools, churches and entertainment venues are closed. All domestic travel has been suspended.

Most of the passengers on the flight were seasonal workers and included the Tongan Olympic team who had been stranded in Christchurch. All were required to have negative COVID tests prior to departure.

The COVID-19 case, a young Mormon missionary, tested positive the day after arriving in Tonga’s capital Nuku’alofa. A spokesman for his church told TVNZ that he had entered New Zealand six weeks earlier after missionary service in Africa.

According to New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, the man, who remains asymptomatic, was fully vaccinated. The passengers have all been placed in managed isolation for 21 days, as well as nearly 100 frontline workers who dealt with the incoming flight. They have all so far tested negative.

New Zealand immunologist Dianne Sika-Paotonu told the Science Media Centre on November 1 that the case “continues to mystify.” Two close contacts were identified in Christchurch and two in Wellington—all tested negative and are in isolation. Links have yet to be established with any of the community cases active in Christchurch and no links to any other known sources have been found.

The arrival of COVID-19 in the tiny kingdom of 105,700 people could prove calamitous if it is not isolated and quickly eradicated. The highly vulnerable country has widespread poverty, high levels of unemployment and a growing methamphetamine epidemic. The health system could not cope with a major outbreak.

Tonga’s Minister of Health Amelia Afuhaʻamango Tuʻipulotu told the Guardian that there is “definitely more urgency” among the population now to be vaccinated. On Monday the number of those fully vaccinated had jumped from 35 percent to 62 percent as people rushed for their second jab. Eighty-eight percent of people have had their first dose.

Viliami Puloka, who has been involved in Tonga’s vaccine rollout, told Radio NZ: “There’s a bit of panic and people just don’t believe that it’s finally got here. I think more of them are disappointed that… our record of being COVID free is now spoiled rather than people are afraid that it can happen to them.”

In fact, the importation of even a single case of the Delta variant can quickly establish a foothold in the vulnerable Pacific countries. In July, Papua New Guinea’s first case entered the country with the captain of a cargo ship, setting off what is now an uncontrolled and deadly surge. Fiji avoided a significant outbreak until April, when a quarantine breach led to more than 50,000 infections and nearly 700 deaths.

Immunologist Dianne Sika-Paotonu told Stuff that news of the case is “heart-breaking” and if it “is not contained, the potential consequences for the Tongan nation will be catastrophic.” She also warned that the case very likely indicated more COVID-19 spread in the Christchurch community than is currently reflected by official case numbers.

The arrival of COVID-19 in Christchurch followed the Labour-Green Party government’s abandonment of its earlier elimination strategy. The country is in the midst of a rapidly growing outbreak, which began in mid-August in Auckland and has since spread to other regions. There are five active COVID-19 cases registered in Christchurch. Two of these people were previously unvaccinated and one had flown in from Auckland, which was under a stricter lockdown.

Epidemiologist Michael Baker said the government and civic leaders should have done more to keep COVID-19 out of Christchurch, stating there were “very mixed messages” about the need to keep the virus out of the South Island. He also sharply criticised Air New Zealand for accepting unvaccinated passengers.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on October 4 that the government would “transition” from its zero-COVID policy, under pressure from big business to “reopen” the economy and allow the extraction of profits from the working class to fully resume. This means that people must now accept “living with” the virus.

The consequences will not be confined within the country’s borders. The Ardern government will bear primary culpability should COVID-19 take off in Tonga. New Zealand, which occupies a position of neo-colonial domination over many Pacific countries, has an appalling history in that regard.

In 2019 nearly 3,000 people across the region fell victim to an outbreak of measles. Gaps in New Zealand’s health system saw the epidemic erupt in Auckland’s working-class Pacific Island communities. It quickly spread to Samoa, causing 5,700 cases and 83 deaths, mostly among children. Tonga had over 100 cases, even though the country previously achieved immunity to measles with 95 percent vaccination rates.

The NZ Ministry of Health warned at the outset that the situation “could become a threat for other countries in the Pacific region.” Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, an immunologist at Auckland University, told Radio NZ she was furious that New Zealand had “exported” measles to Samoa. Michael Baker declared that New Zealand had to get its “act together on public health policy,” a prescient warning given the current COVID crisis.

The measles disaster echoed a previous historic case which still resonates among Pacific islanders. In November 1918, the trading ship SS Talune travelled from Auckland to Samoa, carrying with it as many as 71 passengers and crew infected with a deadly influenza virus. New Zealand’s administrator in Samoa failed to place the vessel under quarantine and allowed passengers ashore.

Within a week, influenza had spread throughout Samoa. Approximately 8,500 people—more than one-fifth of the population—died. The vessel was then allowed to travel on to Tonga and docked in Nuku’alofa, from where the disease again spread. Most of Tonga’s population was infected and between 1,000 and 2,000 people died, an estimated 4 to 8 percent of the population at the time.

Sione Tu’itahi, head of the NZ Health Promotion Forum in Auckland, told Radio NZ last week that the effects of the 1918 flu have been passed down through his family. “I still have stories from uncles and grandparents who were affected, who lost loved ones, so those memories are still vivid and fresh,” he said. It was one of the main reasons that Tonga had closed down its borders so as “not to allow COVID to creep in,” Tu’itahi explained.

In the face of these catastrophic experiences and the current COVID surge, the Ardern government is recklessly expanding its pro-business program and opening up international travel. One-way flights from Pacific countries deemed “low risk” are set to resume on November 8, allowing travelers from Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu and Tokelau to enter, bypassing isolation and quarantine requirements.

WHO warns of 500,000 new COVID-19 deaths in Europe by February

Will Morrow & Alex Lantier

In a press conference yesterday, World Health Organisation (WHO) director for Europe Hans Kluge issued an urgent warning: Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union are now the epicentre of the pandemic. Kluge warned that there could be 500,000 more coronavirus deaths in Europe in just the next three months, beyond the 1.4 million who have already died.

People wait to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in Zagreb, Croatia, Thursday, Nov. 4, 2021. Countries throughout Central and Eastern Europe reported spiraling coronavirus cases Thursday, with several hitting new daily records in the regions that have lower vaccination rates than the rest of the continent. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic)

“Today, every single country in Europe and Central Asia is facing a real threat of COVID-19 resurgence, or already fighting it,” he said. “The current pace of transmission across the 53 countries of the EU region is of grave concern. COVID-19 cases are once again approaching record levels, with the more transmissible delta variant continuing to dominate transmission across Europe and central Asia.”

He continued, “Last week—with more than 1.9 million new cases and 24,000 deaths reported—Europe and Central Asia saw a more than 6 percent and 12 percent increase in cases, respectively, as compared to the previous week. Over the past 5 weeks, Europe has seen a more than 55 percent increase in COVID-19 cases. Last week, Europe and Central Asia accounted for 59 percent of all global cases and 48 percent of reported deaths.”

“According to one reliable projection, we could see more than half a million COVID-19 deaths in Europe and Central Asia by the first of February next year,” Kluge said, “and 43 countries in our region will face high to extreme stress on hospital beds at some point through the same period.”

Death rates in eastern Europe, which has particularly low vaccination rates, are staggering. In the last seven days, 8,000 people died in Russia, 3,800 in Ukraine, and 3,000 in Romania, a country of less than 20 million people. Latvia, with a population of less than two million, is recording weekly death totals of approximately 250—equivalent to approximately 43,000 weekly deaths in a country the size of the United States. Lithuania, with a population of 2.7 million, recorded over 250 deaths in the past week.

There were over 1,000 deaths in the UK over the past week, and over 600 in Germany and Poland. More than 200 weekly deaths are still being recorded in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, and Serbia.

The WHO’s latest 14-day cumulative COVID-19 case notification rate released yesterday shows much of eastern and northern Europe classified as either red or dark red, meaning case numbers of over 200 and 500 cases per 100,000 people, respectively. Dark red is the highest urgency indicator.

WHO Europe 14-day COVID-19 case notification rate, updated November 4. Dark red indicates the highest urgency rate of 500+ cases per 100,000 people.

Hospital admissions across Europe have more than doubled over the past week, Kluge said: “Of most concern is the rapid increase among older aged groups since Week 38 [four weeks ago]. This is translating into more people with severe disease and dying.”

Even before the northern hemisphere goes into winter, typically the deadliest season for COVID-19, Europe is seeing over 250,000 confirmed cases and 3,000 to 4,000 deaths each day. These numbers are rising rapidly as colder weather leads people to gather together in closed spaces indoors, where the virus is more easily transmitted. Moreover, the surge in Europe is likely just the beginning of a surge spreading across the northern hemisphere this winter.

Kluge urged health authorities to act immediately to halt the spread of the virus and prevent another deadly winter. From November 2020 to April 2021, Europe’s COVID-19 death toll surged from under 300,000 to over 1,000,000. Kluge said, “Europe is back at the epicentre of the pandemic, where we were one year ago. The difference today is that we know more and we can do more.”

“We must change our tactics from reacting to surges of COVID-19 to preventing them from happening in the first place,” Kluge concluded. “With a widespread resurgence of COVID-19, I'm asking every health authority to carefully reconsider the easing or lifting of measures at this very moment … Ultimately, we are only getting out of this pandemic if politicians, scientists and the public work together.”

The measures that can halt the pandemic—a combination of lockdowns, contact tracing, vaccination and other public health measures to eliminate viral spread—are known. A number of Asia-Pacific countries including China, New Zealand and Vietnam have successfully eliminated the virus on their territories for months or years during the pandemic. If applied on a global scale, such policies could end the transmission of the virus.

Kluge’s appeals are falling on deaf ears, however. As the pandemic hit Europe last spring, capitalist governments were forced to implement strict lockdowns across much of the continent: a wave of strikes spread at major industrial facilities from Italy across much of Europe, as workers in non-essential industries demanded the right to shelter at home. While the strict lockdowns brought cases down to low levels, however, these lockdowns were ended prematurely while the virus was still circulating and contact-tracing procedures were not set up.

Keeping workers at work, and youth at school to ensure a steady stream of profits to the banks, European governments have since overseen a politically-criminal policy of continued circulation of the virus. What is unfolding now in Europe is the product of this policy of social murder. While vaccinations and warmer weather led to slower infections in the spring and summer of 2021, a new, even greater surge is underway.

COVID-19 deaths and infections are rising faster than they were a year ago, despite the vaccination of hundreds of millions of people in Europe. While Europe’s COVID-19 death toll last year rose by 50,000 from October 18 to November 11 of 2020, from 250,000 to 300,000, Europe is on track to record tens of thousands more deaths in the same period this year.

European officials continue to claim that vaccination is the sole tool to halt the pandemic, even as they send unvaccinated children back into schools, workers back to work, and infections and deaths skyrocket. In France, where daily cases have just reached 10,000, Health Minister Olivier Véran recently told Libération that because of vaccination, he is less concerned about the rise in COVID-19 cases.

He said: “We are following this very closely, of course. This rise is taking place across Europe, unsurprisingly, as we know climate conditions favor the spread of respiratory viruses. However, we know vaccination has strongly limited the correlation between the number of infections and the number of serious cases and hospitalizations and deaths. So today, what I look at carefully, beyond the spread of the virus and incidence rates, it is mainly the pressure on hospitals, which is the fundamental indicator.”

In Britain, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson infamously declared, “No more f*cking lockdowns, let the bodies pile high in their thousands,” the government claimed it would take further measures only if COVID-19 deaths exceeded 1,000 weekly, or 52,000 per year. This figure has been reached, but the government is still not proposing any significant new public health measures.

In Germany, where daily infections have surged above 35,000, Health Minister Jens Spahn recently announced that the government is canceling the legal finding of an “epidemic situation of national scope,” ending the legal basis for anti-COVID-19 health measures. In Spain, the judicial system has repeatedly ruled that the lockdowns imposed last year to halt the pandemic were illegal.

Culture Wars: “The Great Male Renunciation”

David Rosen

 

I’m not a woman. I’m not a man.
I’m something that you’ll never understand.

– Prince

National Geographic is a monthly magazine launched in 1888 by the National Geographic Society and, in 2019, was acquired by the Disney organization.  In January 2017, it published a special issue on the “shifting landscape of gender.”  The issue is entitled “Gender Revolution” and offers a collection of telling profiles and articles exploring the complex issue of gender identity among young people across the globe.

The issue posed a critical question: “Freed from the binary of boy and girl, gender identity is a shifting landscape. Can science help us navigate?”

Provocatively, a number of articles profiled male gender identity in the U.S., including a trans boy, a gun-toting youth and a father raising two newborns. These stories suggest the range of maleness beginning to reshape masculine identity in a traditionally patriarchal society.

The issue has a particular resonance for males somewhere between 20 and … years of age. Especially for guys who do not identify as gay, bi or tranny; guys who are “straight,” hip and macho.  Some of these males are beginning to wear cosmetic makeup.

CNN profiled the former baseball player Alex Rodriguez (“A Rod”) and his BlurStick “skincare solution” for men. The Associate Press (AP) reported that on TikTok, videos with the hashtag #boysinmakeup had 225.9 million views and #meninmakeup was viewed 159.5 million times. Traditional male gender identity is being shaken-up.

Compounding these developments, a 2019 survey for the research group, Morning Consulting, found that 33 percent of young men ages 18-29 years said they would consider wearing makeup and 30 percent of men ages 30-44 reported said they’d be open to the idea as well.

***

Men long wore makeup. According to one report, “from 4000 BC to the 18^th century, men wore makeup daily.”  Various archeological studies date male use of makeup in China and Japan to about 3000 BC.  In China during the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the word “mei” (beautiful) that is today is used to describe feminine beauty related to the beauty of both sexes.  During the Han Dynasty (202 BC–AD 220) and the Three Kingdoms and Six Dynasties period (AD 222–589) men often used artificial methods to look good.  White face powder first became popular among men and boys during the Han Dynasty.  However, at the end of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644), men’s use of makeup fall out of favor.

In ancient Egypt, men and women used scented oils and ointments to clean and soften their skin and mask body odor. Among the basic ingredients used were myrrh, thyme, marjoram, chamomile, lavender, lily, peppermint, rosemary, cedar, rose, aloe, olive oil, sesame oil and almond oil.

In North America, many Native Americans tribes painted their bodies and faces for rituals, dances and for battle. According to one source, “the designs painted were believed to hold magic powers for protection. Colors and images were also used to make the warriors, chiefs and braves to look more ferocious. Their objectives were achieved.”  In addition, Native people also painted their horses and ponies, decorating them with war symbols or symbols of power,

In Europe during the 17^th and 18^th centuries upper-class as men and women wore make-up, especially lead-based ceruse cosmetics to whiten their skin.   As one commentator noted, “the aristocrats preferred several meters high wigs and hairdos, false teeth pulled out of corpse’s mouth, and fake eyebrows made from mouse skin.” During this period, men wore wigs including those with two large peaks at the top known as “allonge wigs” as well as more modest one known as “buckled wigs” or “buckled clubbed wigs”.

Profound changes in male fashion coincided with the American (1775-1783) and French (1789-1799) revolutions, a period British psychologist John Flügel dubbed “the Great Male Renunciation” in his 1930s work, The Psychology of Clothes.  He argued:

Hitherto man had vied with woman in the splendour of his garments, woman’s only prerogative lying in décolleté and other forms of erotic display of the actual body; henceforward, to the present day, woman was to enjoy the privilege of being the only possessor of beauty and magnificence, even in the purely sartorial sense.

It was the period in which Queen Victoria I associated makeup with the devil and a feminine attribute.  The French Revolution challenged established notions of privilege by promoting new ideals of meritocracy and equality.  It led to “the abandonment of bright color, loud patterns, high heels, shiny accessories and other types of ostentatious adornment.”  This included makeup and other cosmetics.  It bespoke a new masculinity, one promoting work and usefulness typified by the trim black suit.

The Great Male Renunciation sought to blurr class distinctions, while heightening gender stereotypes. Men’s clothing sought to present men as more rational and practical, while women’s clothing sought to present females as more decorative.

Gilles Lipovetsky, author of The Empire of Fashion, points out:

The neutral, austere, sober masculine costume reflected the consecration of egalitarian ideology as the conquering bourgeois ethic of thrift, merit, and work. Costly aristocratic dress, a sign of celebration and pomp, was replaced by clothing that expressed the new social values of equality, economy, and effort.

He adds, “Since the nineteenth century, masculinity has been defined in contradistinction to fashion, to the ephemeral and the superficial.”

***

Men wearing makeup is moving from the movie screen to street life.  Many will recall Tim Curry’s role as the cross-dressing alien Dr. Frank-N-Furter in The Rocky Horror Picture Show or David Bowie performing as Ziggy Stardust, both in exaggerated makeup and bold lipstick. Well, male makeup is moving from the exaggerated world of Hollywood to everyday life.

In a 2018 report, The Guardian asked: is makeup for men the next big beauty trend?  It noted that Chanel has launched “Boy De Chanel,” promoting what it identified as “actualization through makeup  rather than the idea of visual enhancement.” Oh, yes, “boy”  stood for “Be only you.” Among the products offered were foundation, lip balm and an eyebrow pencil. It was a product that was about, according to the press release, “breaking free of codes and rewriting the rules.”  The Chanel press office said: “Men should be free to use makeup products to correct or improve their appearance, without calling into question their masculinity.

According to Forbes, the 2021 global beauty and personal care industry, including makeup, fragrance, skincare and personal care, is projected to be a half-a-trillion ($510 billion) industry.  The valuation of the global male grooming products market is all over the place with a 2018 estimated valued it at $11.5 billion while a 2020 estimate reached a value of $69.8 billion.

So, is the Great Male Renunciation finally over?

What the CIA is Hiding in the JFK Assassination Records

Jacob Hornberger

With President Biden succumbing to the CIA’s demand to continue keeping the CIA’s records relating to the Kennedy assassination secret, the question naturally arises: What is the CIA still hiding?

To understand what they are still hiding and why they are still hiding it, it’s necessary to go back to the 1990s during the era of the Assassination Records Review Board — and even further back than that to November 22, 1963 — the day that Kennedy was assassinated. 

People often say that if the CIA and the Pentagon had orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy, someone would have talked by now. 

That’s just not true. When it comes to murder, people don’t talk. They know that if they do talk, they run the risk of themselves being murdered, maybe their families too. People who participate in murder schemes know that they had better keep their mouths shut or else.

One example is Mafia figure Jimmy Hoffa. We still don’t know who killed Hoffa. That’s because no one talked. Another example is Johnny Roselli, the liaison in the CIA-Mafia partnership to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro. We still don’t know who murdered Roselli. No one has ever talked.

People who talk also run the risk of being prosecuted because there is no statute of limitations for murder. A good recent example is real-estate heir Robert Durst. He was recently convicted of murdering a person twenty-one years ago.

So, it was always a safe bet that the CIA and the Pentagon would be able to keep their regime-change operation in Dallas sealed in secrecy.

However, not so with respect to the fraudulent autopsy that the Pentagon carried out on President Kennedy’s body on the evening of the assassination. When the ARRB released people who had participated in the autopsy during the 1990s, they talked.

As I detailed in my books The Kennedy Autopsy and The Kennedy Autopsy 2 and in my online presentation in our Zoom conference last spring, a fraudulent autopsy was an essential part of the cover-up in the assassination.

The problem that the plotters had, however, is that in order to carry out this part of the cover-up, they had to enlist the assistance of many people within the vast national-security establishment who played no role in the assassination. Since all those people were innocent and mostly unwitting participants to the cover-up, they didn’t have the same incentive to stay quiet as the people who knowingly participated in the assassination itself.

The military did its best to keep everyone quiet by telling the autopsy participants that what they were doing was classified. Everyone in the military knows what that means — people are expected to take classified secrets to the grave with them. Participants to the autopsy were required to sign written secrecy oaths. They were also threatened with court martial or criminal prosecution if they ever revealed what they had done or seen.

As I pointed out in The Kennedy Autopsy, the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was actually set into motion at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Immediately after Kennedy was declared dead, the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, announced his intent to conduct an autopsy on the president’s body, as Texas law required. That was when a team of armed Secret Service agents, brandishing guns, told Rose in no uncertain terms that they would not permit him to do the autopsy. Forcing their way out of Parkland Hospital, they took the body to Dallas’s Love Field, where new President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. Johnson then took the body back with him to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where he delivered it into the hands of the military.

Although the mainstream media always treated all this as normal, given the dominant role that the national-security establishment was playing in Cold War America, it was actually quite bizarre and aberrant. The military never had any jurisdiction or legal authority to conduct the autopsy. At that time, killing a president was not a federal crime. The United States was not at war with any nation state. Kennedy was not killed on the field of battle. His killing was a straight murder case under Texas state law. Any criminal prosecution for the assassination would take place in Dallas. A genuinely honest autopsy would be a critically important part of that criminal prosecution, especially since a sharp team of criminal-defense lawyers would inevitably be defending the accused.

The military was mostly, but not entirely, able to keep its fraudulent autopsy secret for some 30 years, until the ARRB began releasing people who had participated in the autopsy from their vows of secrecy. As the ARRB began forcing the military to release its records relating to the autopsy, the dam of secrecy surrounding the autopsy broke wide open. That’s when the fraud became apparent. That’s why the JFK Records Act was such a nightmare for the Pentagon and the CIA. If it hadn’t been for that law, there is no doubt that the military’s fraudulent autopsy would still be shrouded in secrecy today. 

What the Pentagon and the CIA learned from the era of the ARRB is that the community of assassination researchers is composed of some very smart people. By analyzing the evidence that the ARRB was succeeding in getting released, assassination researchers were able to put together the pieces of the puzzle that established a fraudulent autopsy, along with lots of other pieces of circumstantial evidence establishing that what occurred on November 22, 1963, was a highly sophisticated national-security state regime-change operation.

The leading figure in this endeavor was Douglas Horne, who served on the ARRB staff. Anyone who reads Horne’s five-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board will inevitably conclude that the autopsy that the military conducted on the Kennedy’s body a few hours after the assassination was fraudulent to the core. 

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy being conducted on President Kennedy’s body, especially given that the scheme for a fraudulent autopsy was launched at the moment Kennedy was declared dead.

It stands to reason that if a government agency is being forced to reveal records relating to a regime-change operation, that agency is going to keep the most incriminating evidence secret for as long as possible. We still don’t know what the CIA is still hiding, but we can safely assume that there is a good reason why the CIA does not want to let those super-smart assassination researchers get a hold of it. 

That’s why the national-security establishment will fight tooth and nail for permanent secrecy on their remaining JFK assassination-related records. Oh, the Pentagon and the CIA will most likely authorize Biden and the National Archives to release some innocuous records for appearance’s sake. But make no mistake about it: They will make certain that Biden, the National Archives, and all future presidents comply with their demand for permanent secrecy on what they need to hide on a permanent basis.

Gun Rights at the Supreme Court

Morgan Marietta

The Supreme Court heard arguments Nov. 3, 2021, on a clear question: Does the constitutional right to possess a gun extend outside the home? The answer may alter gun regulations in many states.

The crux of the issue before the court is captured by a debate that Thomas Jefferson had with himself at the time of the founding.

When Jefferson was drafting a proposed constitution for his home state of Virginia in June 1776, he suggested a clause that read “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

In the second draft, he added in brackets, “[within his own lands or tenements].”

Jefferson’s debate with himself captures the question posed to the court: Is the purpose of the right to “keep and bear arms” the protection of a citizen’s “own lands,” or is it self-protection in general? Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognize a right to keep and bear arms in the home, or a right to “keep” firearms in the home and also “bear” them outside of the home for protection in society?

The plaintiffs in the upcoming case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen want the court to strike down the state’s restrictions and allow citizens who meet basic requirements, such as having no criminal convictions, to carry concealed weapons.

Gun in the House

There are surprisingly few Supreme Court rulings on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The question of whether the amendment recognizes a fundamental right – on par with free speech or free exercise of religion – was not decided until 2008 in the landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. For the first time, the court recognized a clear individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. This deeply disputed 5-4 ruling was expanded two years later to cover state laws.

The Heller ruling stated that the Second Amendment’s right is like the others in the Bill of Rights, which cannot be violated without the most compelling reasons. The amendment, the ruling says, “surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The Washington, D.C., law intended to reduce crime cannot ban firearms in “the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.”

That ruling – written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 and was replaced by Justice Neil Gorsuch – also recognized that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Scalia cited regulations like “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” or “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons” as “presumptively lawful.”

The principal dissent was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the only dissenter in Heller still serving on the court. He emphasized the balance between core rights and the needs for public safety.

“If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense,” wrote Breyer, “then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.”

Concealed Carry Laws

State governments follow very different procedures for determining who will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm outside of the home.

“Open carry,” or just having a handgun in plain sight on a belt holster or carrying a long gun (rifle or shotgun), is actually legal in many places. The general idea is that carrying openly would be done only by an honest actor, so less regulation is needed. “Concealed carry,” having a hidden weapon in a pocket or under a jacket, is far more restricted.

At one end of the continuum are near-bans on what are called “concealed carry licenses,” while at the other end are states in which no license is needed. These laws are referred to as “constitutional carry,” meaning the U.S. Constitution itself is a citizen’s license to carry a firearm.

In between these two positions are rules known as “shall issue,” whereby the government issues a license if the applicant meets the requirements such as having no felony convictions, or “may issue,” which gives the government discretion to deny a license based on perceptions of fitness.

New York state has “may issue” laws with stringent requirements, which in practice allow almost no licenses to be issued. Applicants must demonstrate a “proper cause” – such as being in imminent danger from a known source – which effectively eliminates ordinary applicants.

Regulation or Eradication

The strongest argument in the gun owners’ brief to the Supreme Court relates to New York’s insistence that citizens show an exceptional or extraordinary need to exercise a right that the court has recognized as fundamental.

No other fundamental right, such as freedom of speech or religion, is limited to people who can demonstrate special circumstances. Instead, fundamental rights are understood to be held by ordinary people in ordinary circumstances.

The strongest argument in the opposing brief from the New York State Police is federalism – the longstanding conservative argument that state lawmakers hold wide latitude to determine their own regulations to serve as “laboratories of experimentation,” as Justice Louis Brandeis phrased it in 1932. The federalist principle suggests that the court should defer to the judgment of state legislatures representing the needs of local citizens.

As a close observer of the Supreme Court, I can imagine an outcome to the case in which the justices rule that, under the Second Amendment, a state can limit but not eliminate the core purposes of the protected right.

The Heller decision identifies at least one purpose as self-defense. The question is whether a specific concealed carry law creates a burden so strong that it becomes equivalent to eradication of the right to self-protection, or whether it imposes a legitimate public safety regulation that still maintains the core right for citizens who assert it.

Individual rights vs. fellow citizens

The most permissive laws that allow unrestricted concealed carry are almost certainly not mandated by the Constitution.

“Shall issue” laws, which allow states to screen applicants for flaws but compel local governments to provide a concealed carry license to qualified citizens, are likely to be seen even by the conservative justices as legitimate regulations that do not create unconstitutional burdens.

However, the current court might be likely to see a “may issue” law like New York’s, which allows the government to deny a license to nearly every applicant, as creating a burden that blocks the core of the right to self-protection where ordinary citizens are exposed to greater threats – outside the home.

The dissenters will likely focus on Scalia’s invocation of the home as the height of the defensive right, allowing for restrictions outside one’s “own lands,” where individual rights are balanced against the interests of fellow citizens.

Is Globalization Leading to a Homogenized Global Culture?

Rawsab Said

As global connections continue to develop in the twenty-first century under the conditions of globalization, periphery and semi-periphery nations try to adapt to the norms of core countries with the aim of developing a similar global influence as developed nations. Throughout history, people of different cultures have migrated to countries with cultures different from theirs. As people move from location to location, they bring along their traditions and cultural norms, which influences others to assimilate various aspects of the foreign culture and integrate it into their own. This process is known as cultural diffusion. The spreading of culture can be classified into two categories, forced integration of culture –known as cultural imperialism– and naturally occurring homogenization. Cultural imperialism is usually due to the colonization or occupation of a country by a foreign power with more global influence.

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, periphery and semi-periphery countries endeavor to reach the same economic positions of core countries, which they undertake by concurring with the cultural norms of highly developed countries. Core countries are tremendously influential, so much so that people that migrate to core countries from lesser developed countries usually acculturate to the cultural standards of the core nation. These give rise to two critical questions of our time: How does homogenization and hybridization result from globalization? What are the pros and cons?

The Path to a Homogenized Global Culture?

Core countries, which are nations that are highly developed, can be found at the top of the hierarchy of globally influential countries. This is because these countries are usually industrialized and have periphery and semi-periphery countries that depend on them. Behind the system of interdependence is a well-functioning, stable, and successful economy, which allows these core countries to be more opulent than others. Being a core country is the primary economic goal of periphery and semi-periphery countries, which is why they often try and follow in the footsteps of developed core nations. The lesser developed countries try to develop themselves in a similar manner to the development of core countries by imitating their culture. This is apparent in many non-core, developing countries. As the world becomes more globalized, all cultures are slowly –but surely– becoming the same. Here, we will use the examples such as the case of Azerbaijan, a developing nation, to show how homogenization and hybridization are resulting from globalization today.

Language

As the number of global connections increase, the need for efficient communication does too. Language serves as both a means and a barrier of interpersonal transmission, which is why the number of international languages has been decreasing for centuries. Many languages spoken exclusively by minorities are dying because the speakers are adapting to more popular languages. In Azerbaijan, the people –especially the youth– are starting to learn English to embrace the culture of developed countries. They also tend to combine some aspects of the Russian language with their own Azerbaijani dialect, which shows the effect and influence of their past occupiers. This expresses the concept of cultural hybridization, as two cultures are put together instead of one overpowering the other. Another example would be Morocco, in which the people speak a dialect that is a mix of Arabic and French. As for a language that is dying, the Chamicuro language, spoken by the indigenous Chamicuro people of Peru, has become an endangered dialect since the indigenous tribe had decided to become modernized and started to embrace Spanish as their primary language. The transitions of countries to international languages –such as English, French or Arabic– allows for homogenization as different cultures use the same language, since it makes them become more similar to each other. The uniqueness of cultures is fading as international languages become more common, people are able to communicate with others more easily and more effectively than before. Although many cultures are nearing extinction, many people from different parts of the world are taking the initiative to revive certain languages by learning about them, which is made possible by globalization, as it allows people to learn more about extinct and endangered languages from around the globe. Languages which are –to some degree– significant to the people that they belong to and their historical context are becoming endangered. For example, Chamicuro, spoken by the Chamicuro tribe in Peru, is becoming replaced with Spanish. This trend can be observed within many tribal languages. This gives a partial representation of the effect of cultural homogenization, as languages that are widespread are staring to diminish, with international languages replacing them.

Ideologies

In the globalized world that we live in, most of the core countries are secular, which denotes that they are less or not involved in religious or spiritual matters. Many developing countries that attempt to imitate the cultural normalities of developed countries often assimilate secularism in order to create stronger alliances with core countries, as well as to follow the path of progression that was taken by the core countries. Azerbaijan is currently listed as a secular country, which would seem rather unlikely as the majority of the population are Shi’ite Muslim, which tend to be religiously conservative. Cultural hybridization is also prevalent in this example, since Azerbaijan is an openly progressive country, but at the same time it retains its unitary government. This exemplifies the notion that core countries influence developing countries through means such as political doctrines. Other political ideologies include democracies and progressivism. Since different countries with significantly different cultures have the same ideologies, which dictate their values and make them increasingly similar. This is more of an advantage, as countries with parallel beliefs and ideologies have a tendency to develop stronger alliances. Although countries having similar ideologies provides several benefits, it still offers a few disadvantages, for example, some countries choose to have different political dogmas because of its culture, majority religion, or geographic location, which causes uncertainty of the relationship with countries that have differing ideologies. A country’s ideologies –whether it be political or social– are substantially important to how it is viewed, which impacts its global influence.

Cultural Arts

Cultural arts are a major part of a country’s unique norms and traditions, especially in lesser-developed countries where folk music and art are more prevalent than modernist values of highly developed countries. Azerbaijan used to be known for its Mugham –a folk musical composition that was regarded as a highly complex art form that fused together classic poetry and musical improvisation– but now it is known for its operas and plays that take place in its theaters. Originally, opera was an Italian art which was embraced by many nations that are now core countries. Since Azerbaijan is one of the countries that imitates the culture of developed countries, it includes opera as one of its cultural art forms, which conveys the country’s homogenization of particularly “Western” culture. Traces of cultural imperialism can also be found in the roots of Azerbaijani culture as some remnants of Russian culture can be found in the country’s art, which was due to the forced Russian occupation of Azerbaijan. Cultural homogenization is prevalent, as different cultures assimilate art forms of other cultures which cause them to become even more similar than they were before. On the other hand, through increased global connections, people can also have the opportunity to learn about foreign cultural arts and study them, which allows them to be preserved and not forgotten. Cultural arts are undeniably a preeminent facet of individual cultures that reflect the distinctive values that people believe in, so the assimilation towards similar, if not the same, art forms can diminish the concept of personal identity. On the other hand, progressing towards a single form of art would allow both core and periphery countries to better relate to one another, thus developing stronger bonds between nations.

Other Forms of Influence

Globalization is a means of influence for core countries, since developing countries with the aim to improve economically look up to developed countries and follow in their footsteps. Cultural homogenization –as well as hybridization– takes place, since the cultures of periphery and semi-periphery countries are susceptible to changes, as adaptations towards cultures of developed countries gives people a sense of improvement, since they are able to relate to more developed countries and follow the same progressive pattern as core nations. Apart from language, ideologies, and cultural arts, cultural homogenization is prevalent through architecture, food, and fashion. As the world progresses, so does architecture. Newer building designs are innovated to accommodate the growing population and modernism that resides in developed countries, which are reproduced by influenced periphery and semi-periphery countries. In non-core countries, ultra-modern architecture shows the substantial influence that core countries have. Modern architecture abolishes cultural identity in cities, but at the same time it allows for more stable architecture and accommodation for growing populations. Although new, modern architecture is being developed, Azerbaijan still has some towns which retain traditional Turkish-Azerbaijani houses and buildings. There are a few foreign designer clothing brands, such as Gucci and Balenciaga that are pinpointed in the city of Baku, Azerbaijan, which shows the influence of more developed countries through terms of fashion. This doesn’t serve any significant advantages, other than lessening discrimination and security concerns caused by foreign clothing. The influence of modern clothing choice and popular “fashion” demolishes the concept of individualism through cultural clothing. On the contrary, many Azerbaijanis retain some cultural aspects through religion, as many Muslim women wear the headscarf for religious –and cultural– purposes. Foreign fast food restaurants, such as McDonald’s and KFC, are also prevalent in non-core countries such as Azerbaijan. Foreign fast food restaurants allow more job opportunities for people in developing countries, but it also diminishes the cultural taste preferences of the local people. But some fast food companies change certain menu items to fit in with the cultural food of the restaurant that their restaurants are in, which allows for cultural hybridization through means of “globalization”. Although the number of fast-food restaurants is increasing, Azerbaijani households usually serve the same traditional food, as it relies on the readily available ingredients distinctive to Azerbaijan. There are many other forms of influence from core countries that affect the cultures of periphery and semi-periphery countries, whether it be a positive change that allows for more advantages, or a negative change that causes more disadvantages to the developing country.

Cultures of different countries are slowly becoming more and more similar as global connections and foreign influences increase. At one point, individual cultures may become almost the same as the cultures that influence them, which are mainly the highly developed core countries with the most economic influence. Developing countries aiming to economically progress to the level of core countries try to do so by adapting to the cultural norms of global superpowers. This usually results in homogenization, where cultures become increasingly similar, so much so that a single global culture has the possibility to be established. Countries that have been occupied or invaded in the past also retain remnants of their invaders’ culture, which is known as cultural imperialism. Lastly, some countries try to coalesce their own cultures with the cultures of other nations to adapt to modern “culture” and retain their own identity simultaneously, which was described as cultural hybridization. By analysing the examples of Azerbaijan –as well as other developing countries– the progression towards one global culture is prevalent, with the most influential cultural aspects being of developed Western nations. In summary, core countries with great economic control often influence countries with the objective of major development to adapt to their culture, slowly bringing us to a more unified, global culture.

Sanctions as a weapon targeting development

Justin Podur

The United Nations is currently sanctioning groups in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Libya, Guinea-Bissau, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Mali. Sanctions in Non-African countries include Iraq, Yemen, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lebanon, and North Korea. The Security Council states that “since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.” None of the sanctioned countries are developed countries to begin with – sanctions devastate their capacities for future development.

The UN says that “sanctions measures, under Article 41, encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed force.” The deadliness of UN sanctions, however, cannot be disputed. The sanctions regime imposed on Iraq after the US bombing of the country in 1990/1 was acknowledged to have killed 500,000 children by 1996, when Madeline Albright famously told 60 Minutes that she thought the price was worth it. Guttman et al. (2019) found that a UN sanctions episode lowered a country’s average life expectancy by 1.2-1.4 years, reduced the targeted countries GDP by 25%, increasing poverty and income inequality. The main mechanisms for this reduction: child mortality, cholera deaths, and decreased resources for public health spending. These aggregate statistics disguise some very grim specifics.

The list of countries under unilateral sanction by the US (or the US plus any coalition it can build for the purpose of punishing a regime) is much longer than the UN list – which countries the US sanctions as well. In addition, the US Treasury site lists financial sanctions details for the Balkans, Belarus, Burundi, the Chinese military, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Zimbabwe. Up until 2012, when Guttman et al. (2019) study period ended, unilateral US sanctions were less deadly than UN sanctions (shortening life expectancy in the targeted country by an average of 0.4-0.5). The deadlier sanctions are UN sanctions.

It is one of many paradoxes of today’s world order that the United Nations, the body responsible (through its Security Council) for the deadliest sanctions also produces the most eloquent reports (through its Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) on the ill effects of proliferating unilateral sanctions. The Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Economic Measures, Idriss Jazairy, has produced five reports on the matter to date. The latest (a report to the General Assembly presented July 5, 2019) specifies violations of human rights stemming from these sanctions regimes:

• US sanctions against Iran violate UN Security Council resolutions, deprive Iranians of relief, have been complied with “unduly” by the European Union such trade has virtually collapsed between Europe and Iran. Sanctions have devastated Iran’s food security (Hejazi and Emamgholipur 2020), its health system and ability to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic (Takian et al. 2020), even its long-term scientific capacity (Butler 2019).
• US sanctions against Cuba have “shattered” the normalizing relations that began in 2017, violate agreements between the US and Europe, and “exert a massive toll on the Cuban economy.”
• US sanctions against Venezuela have played, in the colorful UN prose, “a non-negligible role in crippling the economy.” The rapporteur cites Weisbrot and Sachs (2019), who showed that tens of thousands of Venezuelans have died as a result of these sanctions, and millions have been displaced.
• US sanctions against Russia, the rapporteur complains, “have unintended effects, including boosting the domestic (indigenous) capabilities of Russian industries and the agricultural sector to the detriment of Europe.” And also, sanctions have caused price increases that hurt workers.
• Israel’s blockade against Gaza “constitutes collective punishment of the people of Gaza, contrary to article 33 of the Geneva Convention.”
• The US and EU sanctions against Syria, openly proclaimed as being part of a strategy of “isolating the Assad regime”, “is a crude admission of disregard for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, human rights and humanitarian law.” They have a “catastrophic impact on the Syrian economy and population.”
• The US-UK-Saudi blockade on Yemen has the rapporteur noting “with concern that the flow of essential foodstuffs and other commodities into Yemen continues to be restricted de facto, even though the naval blockade was lifted after the UN Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen was set up.” This is a particularly euphemistic, given the genocidal nature of the assault on Yemen (e.g. Bachman 2019).

Sanctions against Russia and China are part of a broader US strategy: with these sanctions, the US hopes to isolate targeted countries from potential sources of military aid (e.g., Russia’s aid to Syria) or investment (e.g., China’s investments in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, or various targeted African countries). These sorts of US strategies can never be isolated from questions of international development. Sanctions regimes represent the most profound weaponization of development: targeted economic isolation to punish populations by inflicting mass mortality through starvation and preventable disease, all the while destroying future economic prospects.